2007 02-15U
t CITY OF
IDAHO �f
9 X73
•
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires swom testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
X Keith Borup O_Wendy Newton-Huckabay
X. David Moe _ X Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: Approve
4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to
March 1, 2007
5. Public Hearing: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential building lots and 5 common / other lots on 6.84
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road: Continue Public Hearing to
March 1, 2007
6. Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser — North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision: Continue
Public Hearing to March 1, 2007
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 1 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
7. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: CUP 06-041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
building on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store — 213 N. Main Street:
Approve
8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-001 Request for a Rezone of 1.59 acres from an
R-4 to an R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development,
LLC — east of the NEC of W. 4t' Street and Maple Street: Recommend
Approval to City Council
9. Public Hearing: PP 07-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
single-family building 'lots and 2 common lots on 1.59 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development, LLC — east
of the NEC of W. 4t" Street and Maple Street: Recommend Approval to
City Council
10. Public Hearing: PP 07-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
commercial building lots on 8.06 acres in a C -G zone for Medina
Subdivision by Ken Lenz — SWC of South Meridian Road and West
Overland Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
11. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-058 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4435 S.
Meridian Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
12. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-057 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family residential building lots
and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4435 S. Meridian
Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
13. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-059 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8
zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence
Development — west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
Recommend Approval to City Council
14. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on
224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock
Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S.
Eagle Road and south of Amity Road: Recommend Approval to City
Council
15. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: RZ 06-011
Request for a Rezone of 10.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 2 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
1
L'
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development — south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road: Application Withdrawn
16. Continued Public Bearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3
common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development — south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road: Recommend Approval to City Council
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 3 of 3
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
•
e
CITY OF
IDAHO ,jl
eC
q '� TaensuaE V NAY fig
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moe Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting: A P P i— C) hf-.C—
4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
5. Public Hearing: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential building lots and 5 common / other lots on 6.84
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
6. Pu is Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser — North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision:
00 ri- !' n "' e_ ��(,Q- b L4 C 4e s 1' 01 --tv M&,? -Cl 1, d -oz)
7. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: CUP 06-041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
building on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store — 213 N. Main Street: y4pproVe
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-001 Request for a Rezone of 1.59 acres from an
R-4 to an R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development,
LLC - east of the NEC of W. 4t" Street and Maple Street-
Re,ewmaiwd Ameal to 0,14-Y Cvap� .V
9. Public Hearing: PP 0 002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 1.59 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development, LLC - east
of the NEC of W. 4th Stre t and Maple Street:
p r -C) V 04 -IV (i-14 epup fir` -e
10. Public Hearing: PP 07-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
commercial building lots on 8.06 acres in a C -G zone for Medina
Subdivision by Ken Lenz - SWC of South Meridian Road and West
Overland Road: IX1
11. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-058 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S.
Meridian Road:
,0,e_�rntx� I+prD V&fi 7/0 Ct 6ntrI04'_e
12. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-057 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family residential building lots
and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S. Meridian
Road: ,� e C' APP r OV a.1 -1-D Ot OZ4-�
13. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-059 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8
zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence
Development - west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
f ,✓ ev rn me"A Awr-V✓a_,e -716 04'* C�C4(.Q
14. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on
224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock
Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S.
Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
15. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: RZ 06-011
Request for a Rezone of 10.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road:
16. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3
common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road
and west of Liin�nd^"er Road: 0
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Date/Time 02-16-2007
Local ID 1 2088884218
Local ID 2
Total Pacies Scanned: 2
Broadcast Report
10:14:20 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
This document : Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5"x11 "
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
Upjjq REGULAR MEEi1NG
mAm AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Waho Avenue, Meridian. Idaho
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
°Rtlhough the C/ly of Meridian no longer requires stvom testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ablflly of Ute presenter.
1. Rall -call Attendance:
:t Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David MoaJ%6' Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Convent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & zoning
Commission Meeting: Aprr ov---
4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone br Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. - 6230 N. Black Cat Road:
Con -h n u.e PkbU e- heeti-7n.5 4* 1/ X007
S. Public Hearing: PP 07.001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential building lots and 5 common I other lots on 6.84
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc, - 5230 N. Black Cat Road,
et c tji tc -k'�t r l r'4_q 4D AAA -r ck, 1, JW7
6. u k t -fearing CUP 07401 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot mukt-tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave M Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Sut4lvislon,
T. Co�tin d Public Heard ® (roam Februuery1, 2007 CUP 041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
building on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Street Approve
Mald aCpffilssion *eaft �pdo1i bzANMMwk&pne datubbftmaeVsW 9* KyftCtyofMwWm.
Any= dt *hV aceommode6an for r& I as related to documer and/or treating
please wafts A Bre Cly CIBC & Office at 8884433 d laast 48 Fwure plot tr the public meati.
Total Paaes Confirmed : 36
No.
lob
Remote Station
StartTime
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
lob Type
Results
001
764
3810160
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:00
0/2
1
G3
HS
FA
002
764
8989551
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:47
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP19200
003
764
8848723
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:01:09
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
004
764
8886854
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:34
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
005
764
8985501
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:01:09
2/2
1
EC
IHS
CP14400
006
1764
8467366
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:36
2/2
1
EC
IHS
CP28800
007
17634
8950390
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:36
2/2
11
EC
IHS
CP28800
t
a r
_y.
Y Y
y
L �
ti
q
x�
)
fi
Date/Time
Local ID 1
Local ID 2
Broadcast Report
02-16-2007 10:14:29 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
.�t
StartTime
Duration
Pages
Date/Time
Local ID 1
Local ID 2
Broadcast Report
02-16-2007 10:14:29 a.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
Remote Station
StartTime
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
764
208 888 2682
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:34
212
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
764
208 387 6393
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:01:10
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
764
2877909
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:01:10
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
011
764
2088885052
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:35
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
012
764
8881983
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:00
0/2
1
--
HS
FA
013
764
2083776449
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:01:09
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
014
764
14679562
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:39
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP26400
015
764
2088886701
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:34
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
016
764
8884022
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:02:10
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
017
764
3886924
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:46
212
1
EC
IHS
CP24000
018
764
8841159
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:35
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
019
764
12088840744
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:43
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP24000
020
1764
2088840744
09:35:31 a.m. 02-16-2007
00:00:42
2/2
11
EC
HS
CP24000
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct
iM�xf.+l:S YA:r 3{`„i'iF{wz4irF
=4
4
x
k
4'
Y
f
,'.4.
Y n i
.,..
L +r
F I ��o� -�r?ubUc bk\'Ce /
k
II /''C"AQP MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
0�4 REGULAR MEETING
�Dnxo AGENDA
cRr"�v a City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
5. Public Hearing: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential building lots and 5 common / other lots on 6.84
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
6. Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser — North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision:
7. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: CUP 06-041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
building on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store — 213 N. Main Street:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
" .
F I ��o� -�r?ubUc bk\'Ce /
k
II /''C"AQP MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
0�4 REGULAR MEETING
�Dnxo AGENDA
cRr"�v a City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 15, 2007 at 7:00 p.m.
"Although the City of Meridian no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and City Council are expected
to be truthful and honest to best of the ability of the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup
David Moe
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
Wendy Newton-Huckabay
Steve Siddoway
Michael Rohm - chairman
A. Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
4. Public Hearing: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
5. Public Hearing: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential building lots and 5 common / other lots on 6.84
acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
6. Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser — North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision:
7. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: CUP 06-041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
building on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store — 213 N. Main Street:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 1 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
0
8. Public Hearing: RZ 07-001 Request for a Rezone of 1.59 acres from an
R-4 to an R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development,
LLC — east of the NEC of W. 4t' Street and Maple Street:
9. Public Hearing: PP 07-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 1.59 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development, LLC — east
of the NEC of W. 0 Street and Maple Street:
10. Public Hearing: PP 07-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
commercial building lots on 8.06 acres in a C -G zone for Medina
Subdivision by Ken Lenz — SWC of South Meridian Road and West
Overland Road:
11. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-058 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4435 S.
Meridian Road:
12. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-057 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family residential building lots
and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC — 4435 S. Meridian
Road:
13. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-059 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8
zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence
Development — west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
14. Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on
224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock
Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S.
Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
15. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: RZ 06-011
Request for a Rezone of 10.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development — south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road:
16. Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3
common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development — south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road:
Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting Agenda — February 15, 2007 Page 2 of 2
All materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Anyone desiring accommodation for disabilities related to documents and/or hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office at 888-4433 at least 48 hours prior to the public meeting.
Date/Time 02-12-2007
Local ID 1 2088884218
Local ID 2
Total Paaas Scanned - 2
I 1W Broadcast Report 1W
04:40:27 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local Name 1 Line 1
Local Name 2 Line 2
This document: Failed
(reduced sample and details below)
Document size: 8.5"x11"
P1tASegbs+-� r` l oWc ko+'ce —7h&MEs 1
MERIDIAN PLANNING AND ZONING
REGULAR MEETING
tk.maao AGENDA
City Council Chambers
33 East Idaho Avenue, Meridian, Idaho
Thursday, February 18, 2007 at 7:00 pm.
"Altho'Qh the Gley of Maddlan no longer requires sworn testimony,
all presentations before the Mayor and OV Council ars expected
to lie truthful and honest to best of the ab9tyof the presenter."
1. Roll -call Attendance:
Keith Borup Wendy Newton-Huckabay
David Moa Steve Siddowray
Michael Rohm - chairman
2. Adoption of the Agenda:
3. Consent Agenda:
A. Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting.
4. Public Hearing: AZ 07.001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of 6.84
acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creek
Properties, Inc. — 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
5. Public Hearing: PP 07.001 Request for Pr®Urninary Plat approval of 22
single-family residential building lots and 5 common I other kits on 6.84
acres In a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole Creak
Properties, Inc. —5230 N. Black Cat Road:
6. Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request far Conditional Use Permit for an
11.000 square foot muitl-tenant retail budding on .75 acres In a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Buser — North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave In Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallans Subdivision.-
T.
ubdivision:T. Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: CUP 06.041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
budding on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paid Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store -- 213 N. Main Street
Merkbn Planning and Zaft CommkmWn MOW&O Agenda - rreb a" 96.2607 PW I or 2
Ag rwtert is pmswded at publk: mee W SW become pmpeft ofthe CUy of Medan.
Arrytmep wwff modaban fm dlsah�Eas mhOd to dommgde andlor hwft,
rta
0WO owot f� y CkWe Off3ae at 8964433 4433 at least 481m m prior to die pubo mewling.
Tntal Panac Cnn£rmaA • Rd
No.
Job
Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
001
741
3810160
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:00
0/2
1
G3
HS
FA
002
741
8989551
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:43
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP19200
003
741
8848723
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:01:11
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
004
1741
8886854
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:34
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
005
741
8985501
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:01:02
212
11
1 EC
HS
CP14400
006
741
8467366
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:32
2/2
11
1 EC
JHS
CP288M
007
741
8950390
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:34
1212
11
1 EC
I HS
CP31200
.
k1�,..t``"�y�k
kis• C `[ t �'.i""
�' ,.'�.
p afi,'3' r'�
l� r
z
�
k
t;
r,,t`' •t, e' Vii:§.} .ix{ r
F
x a
ri
i ppb?
s
:k
f-
Broadcast Report
Date/Time 02-12-2007 04:40:38 p.m. Transmit Header Text City of Meridian Idaho
Local ID 1 2088884218 Local Name 1 Line 1
Local ID 2 Local Name 2 Line 2
No.
Job
Remote Station
Start Time
Duration
Pages
Line
Mode
Job Type
Results
008
741
208 888 2682
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:30
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP33600
009
741
208 387 6393
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:01:03
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
010
741
2877909
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:01:02
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
011
741
2088885052
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:31
212
1
EC
HS
CP31200
012
741
8881983
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:00
1012
1
—
IHS
FA
013
741
2083776449
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:01:03
212
1
EC
HS
CP14400
014
741
4679562
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:34
212
1
EC
HS
CP26400
015
741
2088886701
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:31
212
1
EC
HS
CP31200
016
741
8884022
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:01:59
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP14400
017
741
3886924
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:41
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP24000
018
741
8841159
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:32
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP31200
019
741
2088840744
03:56:25 p.m. 02-12-2007
00:00:35
2/2
1
EC
HS
CP26400
Abbreviations:
HS: Host send PL: Polled local MP: Mailbox print TU: Terminated by user
HR: Host receive PR: Polled remote CP: Completed TS: Terminated by system G3: Group 3
WS: Waiting send MS: Mailbox save FA: Fail RP: Report EC: Error Correct
•
Meridian Planning and Zoning Meeting February 15, 2007
Meeting of the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission of February 15, 2007,
was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Chairman Michael Rohm.
Members Present: Michael Rohm, Keith Borup, Steve Siddoway, and David Moe.
Member Absent: Wendy Newton-Huckabay.
Others Present: Ted Baird, Machelle Hill, Caleb Hood, Mike Cole, Sonya Watters,
Amanda Hess, Justin Lucas, and Dean Willis.
Item 1: Roll -Call Attendance:
Roll -call
0 Wendy Newton-Huckabay X Keith Borup
X David Moe - Vice Chairman X Steve Siddoway
X Michael Rohm - Chairman
Rohm: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Boy, we have a full crowd tonight.
Welcome to all of you. The first thing I'd like to do is open the public hearing -- the
public meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission for February 15th, 2007, and
begin with the roll call of attendance.
Item 2: Adoption of the Agenda:
Rohm: The second item on the agenda is the adoption of the agenda and there is
just going to be one change tonight and that's the first Public Hearing, AZ 07-001,
will be continued to the regularly scheduled meeting of March 1 st, I believe because
of posting difficulties or something to that effect. But, in any case, that hearing will
not be heard tonight, but the balance of the agenda will be --
Siddoway: And No. 5.
Rohm: Five? Oh. Excuse me. Items 4 and 5 both related to Belhaven Subdivision
will not be heard tonight. So, with that being said, could I get a motion to accept the
agenda as amended?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the agenda. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 3: Consent Agenda:
,,
21 1.
4
Tk
2
'.��
?5 `<✓. ,3.A"µ.,•
a
r
;N zv 9:�xb s. Sd. �•S
J
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 2 of 80
A.
•
s
Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning
Commission Meeting:
Rohm: Okay. The first item here is the Consent Agenda and that's the approval of the
January 18th, 2007, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Any additions or
corrections? Could I get a motion to accept the Consent Agenda?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. All those in
favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 4: Public Hearing: AZ 07-001 Request for Annexation and Zoning of
6.84 acres from RUT to an R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole
Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
Item 5: Public Hearing: PP 07-001 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of
22 single-family residential building lots and 5 common / other lots on
6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for Belhaven Subdivision by Pole
Creek Properties, Inc. - 5230 N. Black Cat Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to open Public Hearing AZ 07-001 and PP 07-001 for
the sole purpose of continuing these two items to the regularly scheduled meeting of
March 1st, 2007.
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue both these items to the regularly
scheduled meeting of March 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: We have got one down. Okay. Before we open up any additional public
hearings tonight, I'd like to talk to you a little bit about the procedures that we go through
here. Many of you this may be the first time you have been here and we try to maintain
a certain amount of order and everybody is given an opportunity to speak and the order
that we go through is we will open a Public Hearing and at that time we will ask the staff
to give their presentation. They will talk to us about each of the projects as it relates to
the Comprehensive Plan and the UDC. They will, then, give us a recommendation to
33
iytq'iJl'�,
t`xf
:fit }a
G
5OIMT.#tit
r
K
TT
IT
crd
f Sri
3,
� 3
t .
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 3 of 80
move forward based upon the input that they have given us. Once we have taken the
staff report, then, we will ask the applicant to come forward and present the project from
their perspective. Once those two presentations have been completed, then, it will be
open to the public and each person that wants to speak to an individual project is
certainly more than -- we desire that public input. If, in fact, there is an individual like a -
- well, a spokesman for a subdivision, homeowners association, usually that person will
speak in lieu of the balance of the people from that subdivision and -- and will be given
additional time at the podium. That does not preclude anybody the right to speak,
though. If, in fact, you have something additional to bring to the attention of the
Commission, at all times that option is available to you. Generally speaking, though, if,
in fact, one person has said exactly what you would have said, it doesn't bring additional
weight by restating it.
Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision:
Rohm: So, with that being said, I'd like to at this time open the public hearing on CUP
07-001, Jamaica Me Tan, and begin with the staff report.
Hess: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. The application before
you is a Conditional Use Permit to construct an 11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail
building. Jamaica Me Tan is proposed to be one of eight businesses housed within the
subject building. The subject property is generally located on the north side of Fairview
Avenue, approximately a half a mile east of Eagle Road and is currently zoned C -G, as
you can see on the PowerPoint presentation. The site totals approximately .75 acres
and is located on Lot 3, Block 1, of the Mallane Subdivision. And this is the Mallane
Subdivision right here. To the north the property is zoned L -O also within the Mallane
Subdivision. Directly to the east is Louie's restaurant. To the west residential property
still under the jurisdiction of Ada County, as you can see. A Conditional Use Permit
would typically not be required for this type of project, as retail uses are principally
permitted within the C -G district. However, per the conditions of final plat approval all
development within Mallane obtain Conditional Use Permit approval prior to submittal
for certificate of zoning compliance. The access to the subject site will be from the
extension of internal drive aisles that connect to previously approved access points to
Fairview Avenue right around here and Hickory Way along here via this access and also
to the east over there. The applicant is also proposing to construct a new driveway to
Fairview Avenue located near the west property line. The majority of this proposed
shared driveway is on the Ada County zoned parcel, so it will be off site. The applicant
has proposed approximately 15.6 percent of the site in landscaping, including the
existing landscape buffer on Fairview Avenue. They have provided center islands
within the parking lot. A five foot wide landscaping buffer is proposed at the west
property line -- or, I'm sorry, at the east property line, which abuts -- no, I guess it is the
west property line, which abuts the residentially zoned property. As you can see north
is actually on the left here. It's a little difficult to see. The applicant has submitted west
and south facing elevations for the proposed structure. Staff is supportive of the
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 4 of 80
proposed west and south facing elevations. However, the east facade will also be
highly visible from Fairview Avenue. Staff requested that the applicant submit
elevations of the east facade prior to the Pubic Hearing, but staff has not received these
elevations. So, this is actually east up here and Louie's would be located up here. So,
essentially, we would be seeing the entire rear of the building as we are heading west
along Fairview Avenue. That is pretty much the only issue that staff has with this
project and that is all staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Any questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward? Okay.
Would the applicant like to come forward, please? Wow. Never had this happen. Let's
see. I think with the applicant not being here, in fairness to that applicant, probably the
right thing to do is to continue this and we will reschedule it for a later hearing date.
Does staff have comment on that?
Hood: Mr. Chair, if I may -- and I don't know that we will make it through everything on
the agenda tonight, but maybe we can just continue it to the end of the agenda and see
if the applicant maybe would just be a little late and if, in fact, we have time for it at the
end of the agenda we can hear it tonight. If not, March 1 st is looking like a pretty good
option, too.
Rohm: That works for me.
Hood: You may want to see if there is someone in the public, though, that may want to
testify on this. I don't know if Mr. Baird has any comments on that, but having them wait
around for four hours to testify --
Borup: I agree with that.
Baird: Mr. Chair, you could certainly do that or a third alternative would be to make a
decision based on the information that you have in front of you. It is the time and the
place for this hearing. If they choose not to be here, it's at their risk.
Rohm: I appreciate your comments and I tend to agree with you, but, you know, the
fact of the matter is there could have been extenuating circumstances that have
prevented the applicant from being here and I would hate to make a decision based
upon lack of full knowledge. So, it would be my preference to continue this to the end of
the agenda and if, in fact, the applicant has not arrived, then, we will continue it again to
the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission.
Anybody have additional thoughts on this?
Borup: No. I agree with that. I would be comfortable making a decision tonight, if they
turned in the other elevation, which they haven't.
Rohm: Well -- and, quite honestly, I think that if we wanted to make a motion to forward
-- or is this -- just make the requirement that they submit additional elevations to staff
x
F
}
fK
�3
^
tx
6
A.$ w"P"3 i 3 k p
i ..•.
Y
E
q
i
1"
s�.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 5 of 80
prior to permit being issued, I think that that's the only issue that was out there. How do
you feel about that?
Borup: I'd still wait until the end.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: That makes sense.
Rohm: All right.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Go ahead.
Moe: I make a motion that we continue Public Hearing CUP 07-001 to the end of
tonight's hearing.
Rohm: It's been moved --
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: --and seconded to continue this item to the end of the agenda tonight. All those
in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 7: Continued Public Hearing from February 1, 2007: CUP -06-041
Request for a Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 square foot storage
building on .88 acres in the Q -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage
Building by St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store - 213 N. Main Street:
Rohm: Okay. We have received comment from the floor suggesting that we make sure
people are here when their item is opened and comment's well taken. At this time I'd
like to open the Public Hearing on CUP 06-041 related to St. Vicinity de Paul Storage
Building and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Let me just get
situated here. As was stated, this application is for the St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store
and they are requesting a Conditional Use Permit to construct a 3,000 square foot
storage building on their .88 acre piece of property located on the northwest comer of
the intersection of Williams, which runs east to west here, and Main Street. The
property is currently zoned Old Town, as is shown on the presentation. We can move
on to the aerial photograph. This is -- the existing condition out there is that St. Vincent
de Paul Thrift Store has been in the city for quite awhile and they have been operating
out of this location for quite some time. As you can see there is a parking lot located in
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 6 of 80
the front. This is the existing building. And this is the location, the general area where
they are proposing to locate that 3,000 square foot storage building. To the north is the
Idaho Youth Ranch Thrift Store to the east of the Main Street and there is restaurants,
some other various uses there. To the south is the bank building, I think it's Home
Federal Bank. And to the west there is actually a condominium complex located that
faces Meridian Road right there. The reason this is before us tonight is for a Conditional
f
Use Permit is that in Old Town all new construction that is not able to comply with the
downtown Meridian design guidelines is required to obtain a Conditional Use Permit and
after reviewing the elevations and the nature of this building, staff found that the
applicant would be unable to meet those design guidelines, which are fairly stringent
and so staff recommended that the applicant pursue a Conditional Use Permit in this
instance for various reasons, because of the type of use and what they are proposing.
Staff does view this, though, as an upgrade to the property, not something where they
are trying to dodge the requirements, they are Just trying to upgrade their property with
the means that they have. Let's move on to the site plan. This will give us a little bit of
;x
an idea of what they are proposing. This is the location of the building. They show a
z ;#
dumpster to the -- to the east and they are just rearranging that little parking area and
showing some parking down here. We can move on to the elevations. That will give us
a little bit of an idea of what we are looking at. I'm not going to run through all the
reasons why this structure doesn't meet the downtown guidelines, it's just sufficient to
say that it doesn't in various ways. But as was stated in the staff report, there is
numerous reasons why staff believes this is a good thing. One of those reasons is that
as you can see in the aerial photograph, a lot of this rear portion of that lot is currently
used kind of as outdoor storage. The thrift store receives numerous donations and they
don't necessarily have space in their existing structure to take in those donations and
sort them, so what they came up with was proposing this structure to house those
sorting and donation facilities and keep everything inside and covered from the rain and
the elements. And so that was really the main reason why staff viewed this as a -- as a
move forward for this piece of property. The other reason is also -- let's see here. As
ri
you can see where it will be located, it will not really be visible from Main Street or
y
Meridian Road, which are the two main thoroughfares through the downtown area. The
only spot that will be visible from, really, is this alleyway that runs back here and from
the terminus of Williams Street and what they have done -- actually, on that southern
elevation is that's the one elevation where they have provided some stucco. There is
the window and there will be a roll up door. And so they have tried to enhance that as
best they could to spruce that up a little bit, rather than just the steel siding they show
on all the other sides. Other than that, this is a Conditional Use Permit and staff is
recommending approval of this Conditional Use Permit to create this storage facility at
this time. And I will stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to
come forward, please?
Fairchild: Good evening, Commission Members. My name is Mike Fairchild, Architect.
I am representing St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store. The staff covered everything pretty
well. I just would say they do have a couple of conditions on there that we don't have
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 7 of 80
any problems with. The one condition would be the five foot landscaping, so we'd
extend that a little bit and make it a little wider there, instead of the back out, and we will
make the back out area, the drive area, 25 feet. We don't have any problem with those
two conditions. And with that I will leave it to you for asking questions.
Rohm: Thanks very much. Any questions of this applicant? Thank you. Cynthia
Russ. Would you like to speak to -- Okay. Thank you. From the audience she said she
was only hear to answer questions if there were from the Commission and I don't
believe there are any. Is there anybody else that would like to speak to this applicant?
Seeing none, could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded close the Public Hearing on CUP 06-041. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
J
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering staff and applicant testimony, I move to
s
recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 06-060 as presented in the staff
report for the hearing date of February 15th, 2007.
Moe: Second.
F
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to approve CUP 06-041. All those in favor say
aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank you.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Lucas: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, just listening to the motion I believe
it was said approve -- recommend approval to the City Council. I just want to clarify that
ry
this is the deciding body on this.
q
Rohm: And I modified that in my statement.
Lucas: Thank you very much. I just wanted to make that clear for the record that this is
n,
the final decision.
Item 8: Public Hearing: RZ 07-001 Request for a Rezone of 1.59 acres from an
'
R-4 to an R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development,
{
LLC - east of the NEC of W. 4th Street and Maple Street:
a
Item 9: Public Hearing: PP 07-002 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
single-family building lots and 2 common lots on 1.59 acres in a proposed
't'e*
: +u,Y$t
'} F xx Y X"+d„'�..5 d�' '•' pb n' -GF h i'=
3
�3 �'`�,
.•'d: i'# (t :� }t �"yc.,z:.p r t r k r ,.1-$^%t x
M w
.4 xf r
iv
.
Ogg-4't ua.
'vA"Y d fili i-tir5 - t fy "
n-
iz,J ,,
f3'
tt.,5 :y
ryy i
Jr
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 8 of 80
R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision by Heritage Development, LLC - east of
the NEC of W. 4th Street and Maple Street:
Rohm: Yes. Thank you. And you're absolutely right. Okay. At this time I'd like to open
the public hearings on RZ 07-001 and PP 07-002 and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. This application is
called the Deklan Subdivision. The applicant Heritage Development has apply for
rezoning from R-4 to R-8, which is medium density residential, for 1.59 acres and
preliminary plat approval of six single family residential building lots and two common
lots in the proposed R-8 zone. This site is located on the east side of west -- on the
east side of West 4th Street -- right here. This is West 4th. Near the northeast comer
of the intersection of West 4th Street and Maple Street. Maple Street runs east to west
right here. The surrounding area -- let me give you a little bit of context here. To the
north you have some -- a single family home located right here and this is the LDS
church property, which is located off of Cherry Lane right there. There is an older LDS
church with some ball fields in the rear. To the east there is some single family homes
zoned R-4. To the south also single family homes zoned R-4. And to the west are
some single family homes zoned R-8. As was stated -- move on to the aerial
photograph here. You can see that existing home and this area of that lot has been
vacant for some time. This is the preliminary plat. This gives us an idea of what kind of
subdivision the applicant is proposing. They are proposing a -- regarding their street
system, an approximately 300 foot long cul-de-sac with the six lots taking access off of
that proposed street. Along with that the total gross density of the project is
approximately 3.77 units per acre. The applicant is providing some landscaping as you
can see here. There will be a landscape strip on the north side of the proposed street
and approximately ten foot wide landscape strip along this south side, which will help to
avoid the double fronted lots that can be undesirable. So, they are proposing that ten
foot strip. And as I understand it -- the applicant will probably touch on this also -- due
to a fire department requirement to widen this cul-de-sac a little bit -- I think it's this area
down here. They are going to have to go to five feet, which staff views as definitely
possible. There really are no UDC requirements regarding double fronted lots, it's
something that staff looks at definitely and we usually recommend ten feet, but it's really
up to the discretion of the Commission to see if, indeed, that five foot meets the needs
of these neighbors. Approximately .1 acres or 6.3 percent of the site is being set aside
four open space in those areas I have designated. And this subdivision and a rezone
request complies with the UDC and also with the Comprehensive Plan. Other than that,
there are no special considerations, except for the fact that the applicant is requesting a
waiver of the pressurized irrigation requirement due to the fact that the water, as stated
by -- as stated by the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, the water crossing this site is
not reliable enough to provide pressure irrigation to this area. However, city code
allows for City Council to waive this requirement only if the property does not have any
water rights. Therefore -- and this was a comment from our Public Works Department.
The Public Works staff is not supportive of waiving the requirement and would require a
pressurized system that utilizes existing surface water and is supplemented by city
water. That was one of the issues that came up regarding irrigation water on this site
i •
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 9 of 80
and something that should be considered by the Commission. Other than that, staff is
recommending approval of this rezone and subdivision application and I will stand for
any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come forward,
please?
Johnson: Good evening, Chairman Rohm, Commissioners. My name is Megan
Johnson with WRG Design, 1173 East Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. And
I'm here to represent Mr. Wayne Stacy, the applicant on the project, and Justin
basically covered everything that I wanted to touch on. We are in agreement with the
staff report. I do have our engineer here to discuss the pressurized irrigation system if
you have questions. Our concern is that there is just not any water -- reliable source of
water on that property for a pressurized irrigation system and the applicant is more than
willing to connect to city water and have an irrigation system hooked up, but we just
don't feel a pressurized irrigation system is appropriate on this site due to the lack of
water and Justin also did touch on the other thing that I was going to talk about, which
was increasing that cul-de-sac radius from 45 feet to 48 feet and that does -- and he did
point to the right spot earlier. I don't have my little --
Rohm: There is a pointer up there.
Johnson: Oh, is there? Okay. So, right in this area the cul-de-sac will come out just a
little bit more to accommodate the Meridian Fire Department's request for a 48 foot
radius, leaving a five foot buffer right there. And this is a private lot, so they will be
landscaped. And it should be -- it should be nice. We wanted to make sure that the lots
on the south weren't double fronted and try to make a nice entry for our project as well.
The only other thing that I wanted to bring up was a request by the sanitary service to
have a turning radius of 50 feet and we feel that a 48 foot radius is plenty in
conformance with the Meridian Fire Department standard. So, if you have any
questions about the pressurized irrigation system or anything else, myself or the
engineer Ryan Morgan, is happy to answer.
Rohm: I guess my question would be is -- are any of the neighbors to the south or the
north, are any of them on pressurized irrigation systems that are provided outside of the
city water?
Johnson: I do not know the question to that -- Ryan? Or the answer.
Cole: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: That's fine.
Cole: Mr. Chair?
Rohm: Mr. Cole.
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 10 of 80
Cole: Members of the Commission. When I saw this application first come through
requesting the waiver for pressurized irrigation, the first thing I did was check to see if
there were any pressurized irrigation systems adjacent that they could tie into and there
were not. All this was platted prior to the city's requirement for the pressurized irrigation
system. I could speak a little bit about the Public Works' comment about the PI system
if you so choose at this time.
Rohm: Yeah. I'd like to -- I'd like to hear a little bit more about that, Mike.
Cole: The city code requires a pressurized irrigation system, so that you're not using
the potable water to basically drain the aquifer to throw right back on the ground. You
know, drinking water is treated to a level so that it's drinkable and just to throw it back
on the ground is wasted resources. So, there is a requirement for pressurized irrigation.
Justin touched on the fact that Council can waive this requirement if it's proved that
there are no existing irrigation rights, is how the code reads. The letter from Nampa -
Meridian on this site said that there is spotty irrigation delivery, that it's not reliable
enough to feed a pressurized irrigation system, and so our -- internally we talked about
this a bit and we thought the -- the prudent thing to do may not be the easiest or the
most cost effective for the applicant -- would be to put in a pressurized irrigation system
with a wet well that could hold the surface water when it's available, but be -- use city
water on top of that to supplement it when there is not enough water from the surface.
So, you're using the surface water that's available to put on the ground, instead of just
using potable city water. The requirement can be waived by Council, it cannot be
waived by this Commission, but you can definitely send your recommendation on. And
I'd stand for any other questions if I haven't described it adequately.
Rohm: No. That makes perfect sense. Thank you.
Morgan: My name is Ryan Morgan, WRG Design, also at 1117 -- no. 1173 East
Winding Creek Drive, Eagle, Idaho. 83616. Right? Yeah. In regards to the pressure
irrigation system, as you can see we have that letter from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
District, but we also did do some research, as Public Works did, and there are no
systems within probably a half mile of this location due to the existing nature of this
being an older part of town. As stated, we have spotty water delivery. With discussions
from the neighbors in the area and with the irrigation district, we are talking about water
delivery less than once a week for only a few hours during that time frame. We have
water rights of 1.21 shares, which is equivalent to about 11 gallons per minute. So, we
are not talking about a whole lot of water and we just -- we feel that it would be not only
not cost effective, but to create a pump station -- and to be honest with you, cost is not
the overall factor on this, it's creating a pump station in the location that would probably
sit in this general area, which would not be pleasing to the entrance. You could
probably do something architecturally that would be acceptable, but we are talking
about, again, a small amount of water, we are talking a one or a two horse pump that
you get water once a week, if that, and so the other six days out of the week you're
going to be using the city water anyway, so we just -- we feel -- and we have talked with
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 11 of 80
0
our client, we just feel that because of this little amount of water delivery that you're not
really gaining anything, you're going to be using mostly city water anyway and only
about five to ten percent of the water that you are using will actually come from this
surface water right.
Rohm: Thank you. I suspect that that's a very accurate assessment. Any additional
questions of this applicant?
Siddoway: One, Mr. Chairman.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I'd just like to confirm that the remainder of Deklan Court, the buffer on the
south, will remain at ten feet and only the area necessary at the east end is what's going
to be reduced to the five foot.
Johnson: That is correct.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: And I just want to reiterate that we are planning on installing a drip irrigation
system and using plants to conserve as much water as we can. We know water
conservation is a big issue and so we will do everything we can to lessen our use of
potable water.
Rohm: Thank you. Any additional questions of this applicant? Okay. At this time I'd
like to ask Bud Larsen if he'd like to come forward. If you want to speak. You don't
have to come forward. Oh. Oh. Okay. Well, from the audience he said that his signing
up was a mistake. And Janet Larsen same answer? Same answer from Janet Larsen.
Okay. We will go through the list -- you will get your chance to -- okay. John
Fernandes. They are waiving their -- and Kay Fernandes. And they are both waiving
their -- okay. And Megan Johnson -- oh. Excuse me. Okay. Now, anybody else that
would like to speak may come forward.
Lentz: I'm the unofficial spokesman for the waived people. Is there any way we could
zip back to the slide where we see the subdivision to the west? Yes. We are the R-8
zone.
Rohm: Oh, I'm sorry, we need your name and address.
Lentz: I'm Laura Lentz. It's at 1420 North Cresmont Drive in Meridian. 83642. And it's
L -e -n -t -z. Meridian Town Square is the subdivision right to the left. It's the loop in
yellow. We are only 48 houses and so our prime concern with this subdivision, as nice
as it sounds, especially in the area, it will look great, is the traffic increase on our
streets. We are the main thoroughfare to Cherry Lane from 4th. 4th stops. You drive
into the church -- 4th stops right by the new proposed -- you can't drive all the way into
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 12 of 80
4th to Cherry, so you're going to take a left on Maple and go right into our subdivision or
you're going to take a right on Maple and go through a very crowded -- I'm a little
nervous. I'm song. Group of people, too. So, our wont' is the traffic of these houses.
Now, six houses isn't a lot of cars, maybe 12, but when we only have 48 houses, you're
adding a lot of traffic to our streets. So, we have got about 55 kids in our subdivision.
My main worry is that this subdivision also is a prime walkway for kids going all the way
south of 4th crossing and walking to the middle school and walking to Meridian
Elementary, so we are adding all the traffic through our subdivision and kids walking
there. Basically, just adding the 12 cars back and forth. We have had some traffic
issues and we are just adding more people, it just seems extremely unsafe and unfair,
basically, to our two roads that we have. So, we only ask that you don't approve it, so --
and, unfortunately, I noticed in the staff presentation nobody addressed traffic at all, so
that might be something, if we can see why 4th can't be -- I'm sure there is some logical
reason why 4th can't be extended, but it seems like every single person is going to end
up driving right by my house, so that's --
Rohm: Okay. I have a question for you, ma'am.
Lentz: Yes, please.
Rohm: Okay. Just out of curiosity, what would you suggest the development for this
property -- what would be appropriate?
Lentz: I'd love -- I'd love 4th to go through.
Rohm: No. No. No. No. For the application that's before us tonight, what do you think
is appropriate?
Lentz: In lieu -- basically, I know the alternative is -- I would rather not have the
development, if we can't do 4th. So, that -- I mean I guess that's what -- you got to
remember, I'm not zoning and planning, so I don't -- you know. And I know maybe it's
not possible, but all of that traffic is going on to, you know, a hundred people. Okay.
So, that's not -- it doesn't seem like much. But, you know, we just have a lot of kids
walking to school and so I know that people zip in and out of there and so that's what
makes me worried. What I have them do? I don't know. Punch 4th. That's the only
thing I'd want to do and I don't -- it's probably not possible. And you know what, we
have actually talked -- if we could figure out how to do a testing for speed bumps going
in and out of -- that would make us feel better, because people in and out come zipping
around 4th, which is not solely their responsibility, I understand that, but with the added
-- with the added traffic maybe we could at least stick that on the traffic's side to see if
we could get the speed bumps to slow the traffic down.
Rohm: Really, I thank you for your testimony. I --
Lentz: I know it might not be probable.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 13 of 80
Rohm: I suspect that 4th would -- the extension of 4th wouldn't ever be a part of this
development, but I can certainly see how -- why you would like to see 4th extended all
the way to Cherry and thanks for your comments.
Lentz: You bet.
Rohm: There is not anybody else signed up, but at this time if there is additional
comments, please -- and you will get -- seeing no additional -- anybody coming forward,
if the applicant would, please, come back to the podium.
Johnson: I just would like to respond to Mrs. Lentz's comments. Always traffic is a
concern with any new development and we would love to see 4th punch through as
well, but there is, obviously, some existing conditions that aren't part of this project.
ACHD did do a study for this project and I just want to say that the last traffic count on
4th Street was at 576 trips per day and the acceptable threshold for a street of this
classification, a residential local street, is 2,000 trips per day. We will be adding 60 trips
per day, that's ten trips per household is the standard calculation for this type of
residence, so we will still be far below and we also will be -- part of our conditions are to
add sidewalk along 4th Street in front of our development, which helps somewhat with
the safety for children, having them to walk on a sidewalk, instead of the street and we
certainly do sympathize with the neighbors, but we feel that this development is -- really
it's the best development for this piece of land at this time. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Keith, did you have something that --
Borup: Yeah. Just a quick -- just a clarification on traffic a little bit. There is -- there is
no impediment for -- on Maple and 2nd, is there?
Johnson: I don't believe so.
Borup: So --
Johnson: It goes through.
Borup: So, someone traveling -- traveling east would most likely go that way. It looks to
me like most -- the only reason to go through this subdivision is someone going to the
west, which most of our retail development is to the east from here.
Johnson: Correct. Correct.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Johnson: Yes. That would be my guess, too.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
1
t
sa
g7n»
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 13 of 80
Rohm: I suspect that 4th would -- the extension of 4th wouldn't ever be a part of this
development, but I can certainly see how -- why you would like to see 4th extended all
the way to Cherry and thanks for your comments.
Lentz: You bet.
Rohm: There is not anybody else signed up, but at this time if there is additional
comments, please -- and you will get -- seeing no additional -- anybody coming forward,
if the applicant would, please, come back to the podium.
Johnson: I just would like to respond to Mrs. Lentz's comments. Always traffic is a
concern with any new development and we would love to see 4th punch through as
well, but there is, obviously, some existing conditions that aren't part of this project.
ACHD did do a study for this project and I just want to say that the last traffic count on
4th Street was at 576 trips per day and the acceptable threshold for a street of this
classification, a residential local street, is 2,000 trips per day. We will be adding 60 trips
per day, that's ten trips per household is the standard calculation for this type of
residence, so we will still be far below and we also will be -- part of our conditions are to
add sidewalk along 4th Street in front of our development, which helps somewhat with
the safety for children, having them to walk on a sidewalk, instead of the street and we
certainly do sympathize with the neighbors, but we feel that this development is -- really
it's the best development for this piece of land at this time. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Keith, did you have something that --
Borup: Yeah. Just a quick -- just a clarification on traffic a little bit. There is -- there is
no impediment for -- on Maple and 2nd, is there?
Johnson: I don't believe so.
Borup: So --
Johnson: It goes through.
Borup: So, someone traveling -- traveling east would most likely go that way. It looks to
me like most -- the only reason to go through this subdivision is someone going to the
west, which most of our retail development is to the east from here.
Johnson: Correct. Correct.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Johnson: Yes. That would be my guess, too.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
1
nF
} t rt
b 2
rt yy
� x
L K A
1
t
t.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 14 of 80
Rohm: Yeah.
Siddoway: One additional question for the applicant. Will -- are you being required by
ACHD to improve West 4th Street in -- with the frontage that you do have along 4th
Street?
Johnson: Yes. We will be installing sidewalks. You can see it on our preliminary plat.
It's not a whole lot and we will be doing additional right of way as well.
Siddoway: Will you be adding asphalt in the right of way in this area or where does the
existing 4th end? I'm assuming it's in this area.
Johnson: Let me -- yes. Along our frontage we will be adding streets and sidewalks
and --
Morgan: We will be adding about five to ten feet of additional asphalt along our
frontage.
Siddoway: Okay.
Johnson: Thank you.
Morgan: That's all.
Siddoway: Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. At this time could I get a motion to close the Public Hearing?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 07-001 and
PP 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Any closing comments before we move forward with this application?
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: To staff. You stated that Council may waive the pressurized irrigation beyond
that, but that's not something that we have to deal with, but we can make a
recommendation if we so choose this evening? Okay.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 15 of 80
Rohm: And just speaking for myself, I would recommend that we waive that
requirement. I think that to install a pressurized system that will never be used is asking
a bit much of this applicant and it would certainly be my recommendation to waive that
to Council. Commissioner Siddoway, do you have any comments? Commissioner
Borup?
Borup: None.
Rohm: Okay. Could we get a motion?
Borup: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers RZ 07-001 and PP 07-002,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 15th, 2007. End of
motion. Does the Commission want that added? I mean we don't -- it's going to be up
to the City Council anyway.
Rohm: I think they are going to hear -- they are going to see the minutes and that will
be requested in the minutes, so I don't think the motion has to include any
recommendation.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of RZ 07-001 and PP 07-002. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried. Thank you all for coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 10: Public Hearing: PP 07-003 Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 6
commercial building lots on 8.06 acres in a C -G zone for Medina
Subdivision by Ken Lenz - SWC of South Meridian Road and West
Overland Road:
Rohm: At this time I'd like to open the Public Hearing on PP 07-003 and begin with the
staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The application
before you is a preliminary plat request for Medina Subdivision. The property is 8.06
acres in size and is currently zoned C -G. The subject property is located there on the
southwest comer of South Meridian Road and West Overland Road. The property is
bordered on the east by Southern Springs commercial development, zoned C -G. On
the west by vacant ground and it's in the process of developing, zoned C -G. On the
north is Jackson's food store, the gas station there and the Sandman motel, zoned C -G.
And on the south by Elk Run Subdivision, zoned R-8. The site is currently vacant. All
buildings have been removed from the site. The property is zoned C -G, which complies
with the Comprehensive Plan map designation of commercial. The applicant is
C
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 16 of 80
requesting preliminary plat approval for six commercial building lots on 8.06 acres of
land. There are no minimum setbacks, lot size, or street frontage requirements for lots
in the C -G zone. Proposed lot sizes range from 1.088 acres to 1.877 acres. The
development agreement previously approved for this site requires all future uses to
obtain Conditional Use Permit approval. Additionally, all future buildings on the site
adjacent to South Meridian Road, an entryway corridor, are subject to design standard
approval. A development agreement modification is also proposed to allow right -in,
right -out access point to the subdivision from South Meridian Road. However, the
Commission is not required to make a recommendation on this application. The access
point we are talking about is right there. Access to state highways is normally prohibited
per the Comprehensive Plan. However, a variance was approved in 2005 that granted
one right -in, right -out access to Meridian Road. Further, said access was to extend
directly to the property to the west for future cross -access. The applicant has worked
with the property owner to the west and is now proposing to relocate this access to the
northwest comer of the site right up here to allow this property to share a full access
point to Overland Road. This site will also have one right -in, right -out access point to
West Overland Road, which is right there. A cross -access agreement with the property
to the west is required. Other than the access points approved with this application,
direct lot access to West Overland Road and South Meridian Road is prohibited. The
landscape plan proposed for the subdivision. A minimum 35 foot wide landscape buffer
is required along South Meridian Road here. The plan currently shows a reduced buffer
width where the deceleration lane will be constructed. Right in there. Alternative
compliance must be approved prior to submittal of the final plat application for reduced
buffer width. A minimum 25 foot wide buffer is required along West Overland Road. A
25 foot wide buffer between land uses is required along the south boundary adjacent to
Elk Run Subdivision to the south. The applicant has submitted some proposed sample
elevations of what the future buildings on this site may look like. There is several
different ones here. These are all approximately the same construction materials and
type. They are a little different here. Staff is recommending approval of the subject
preliminary plat application based on the conditions stated in the staff report. That's all
staff has, unless the Commission has questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff? Would the applicant like to come
forward, please?
Elg: I believe they are going to put in a little Powerpoint presentation for me. My name
is Van Elg. I represent the applicant tonight. I'm with the Land Group, 462 East Shore,
Eagle, Idaho. No. 100. And -- if we can get that going. We have reviewed -- I guess
what I could mention right now is we have reviewed Sonya's staff report and each of the
conditions of approval and our in agreement with the items that are specified. We don't
have any particular concerns with anything that's been mentioned. We had a meeting
with the neighborhood association -- or a neighborhood meeting out on site. It was a
rather rainy and gloomy night, which probably discouraged some, but I waited out at the
site until about ten minutes after the hour and redirected anybody that did show up over
to the nearby restaurant and we had a nice little meeting and some drinks over there
with the groups in the restaurant there. Hot cocoa. When we first came to -- when the
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 17 of 80
applicant first came to us there was a number of issues that we needed to address.
First of all, many of you will probably recognize that this site has a long-standing history
that has long needed to be cleaned up and we think that this application that you have
before you today represents that -- a significant change. See if I can make this thing
work now. As Sonya mentioned, this is on the southwest comer of the intersection of
Meridian and Overland Road, approximately eight acres. We are in compliance with the
Comprehensive Plan. As you can see, there is a significant portion of commercial
zoning -- or commercial designations in the Comp Plan and we fall within that area
there. Zoning districts. We are currently zoned C -G, as are many of the properties in
the surrounding area. The preliminary plat involves the platting of six individual lots,
one of which will be the Walgreen's, which will be the primary box tenant there on the --
on the main intersection. Behind that will be five additional lots. We have tried to
remain sensitive to the owners in Elk Run to the south. You will probably recognize that
the site has a substantial amount of -- or elevation and some topography differences
with that of Elk Run. Approximately 14 feet, I think, as I was looking at the topography
drawings today. The applicants are certainly concerned about erosion that may occur
on that slope. We assured them that we will provide the necessary plantings to secure
that slope and insure that there isn't any additional washing away of that area. It's been
there for a number of years and we hope to improve it and make it better. As Sonya
mentioned, one of the things that you will notice is this intersection -- this access point
right here, which goes into the commercial developments in this area here, this will be
reduced, as we understand it from ACHD, to a right -in, right -out. This access point
here, which accesses the water park, will be slid further over to align with this new
cross -access easement provided between this property and our current subdivision.
That will provide a much safer intersection and alignment for those two driveways. This
area here, as Sonya mentioned, was a cross -access easement that was required under
the previous application and approval to provide access out to Meridian Road. We
believe that this is a much safer and more functional intersection now for the current
development that's proposed and one of the development representatives is here
tonight should you have any questions about that access and I believe they are in
support -- and will indicate that they are in support as well. This is just a blow up if we
needed any additional discussion of that side area. Sonya has already mentioned the
landscape plan. As shown, this will be constructed as far as the first phase of the
development. These additional lots here, the additional five lots, will be brought in
individually and as required under the existing development agreement will require a
separate CUP application for your review and approval. An indication of where the -- a
little different view of the Walgreen's site. And as Sonya mentioned, here are some of
the architectural styles. You will notice that these buildings are constructed down on
Highway 44, Highway 55, near that Home Depot building there. And I would ask --
open myself up for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this applicant?
Moe: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. Just one in regard to that access point on Overland, the
western access point.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 18 of 80
Elg: Okay.
Moe: And ACHD has approved that?
Elg: Yes. We have got -- we have provided cut sheets to Sonya. We, actually, got the
plans from ACHD for that as well, so -- and they indicated to us that that plan is -- the
plan is to slide that access point over there and apparently the agreement's been struck,
so --
Moe: Thank you.
x
Elg: Uh-huh.
Siddoway: Just a follow up. And this may be for staff. But I'm wondering has that
agreement already been reached with the water park to the north? Because we can't
require a relocation of an off-site access point with this one. I'm just hoping that those --
Y `
they do, in fact, line up in the future.
Sonya: Yes, they will.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.
Elg: Thank you.
Rohm: Would Ken Weldon like to -- Weland like to come forward, please? Oh. Okay.
They submitted a letter and it's in our packet. Okay. How about Brian McGraff?
b
Siddoway: We need your name --
"
McGraff: I'm Brian McGraff.
.:'
Rohm: Name and address.
McGraff: I'm one of the residents in the Elk Run tract that's back is backing up to me.
k
Rohm: Yes, we need your name and address for the record.
'
McGraff: Brian McGraff. 168 West Davenport Drive, Meridian. In the Elk Run tract.
Rohm: Thank you.
,.
McGraff: There is two little worries and in our meeting with the developers they
indicated that they would do a nice landscape job, which will take care of the irrigation
concerns. The other concerns for me is the noise from the property and what's
r3:
x
x
M1!
sR
wax'
�
M
» .
'hcri,
n i. a
tw
Y
,
"
r
FSA € g,
YF
ri
Y
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 19 of 80
0
separating us now is a ten year old fence that is there that is -- we will probably have to
replace. We would be -- what we would like is if the developer would build a concrete
block wall there that would assist in cutting down the noise from the new project.
Rohm: Thank you.
McGraff: Thank you.
Rohm: Is it Peter Oliver or -- yes.
Oliver: Mr. Chairman, Commissioners, good evening. I am here on behalf of the
property to the west of the -- 12601 West Explorer Drive, Suite 200. Sorry.
Rohm: And your full name?
Oliver: Peter Oliver --
Rohm: Thank you.
Oliver: -- here representing the property to the west. And Van has covered most of the
pertinent points. We have worked with the developer of this site for several months now
in getting the access points and we have worked with the folks across the street all the
way down Overland for full alignment, Commissioner Siddoway, and we feel really good
about the solution here. It brings that first full access point farther away from the
intersection. We do a full sign off and support by ACHD. And we will also be
participating in a signal that's a little further west as well. And, in addition, we feel that
the previous cross -access point off of Meridian Road was -- this is a much better
solution that will keep traffic from zipping up and down there in the middle of their
project, which should keep noise, et cetera, down as you get closer to the residential
side. So, we are in support of the application and have worked closely with all the
neighbors to get where we are. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Oliver: Any questions?
Rohm: That is all that have signed up for this particular application, but at this time I'd
like to open it to the floor. Anyone else that would like to come forward is certainly
welcome to do so. Okay. Seeing none, could I get a motion to -- would the applicant
like to make any final comments?
Elg: Just one quick comment about the issue of sound and a concrete block wall. I'm
certainly not a sound engineer; I have dealt with a number of sound walls.
Commissioner Siddoway probably has some experience with that as well. You do have
to be very careful with the construction of those. We would propose that a much more
appealing and attractive solution to that and often a softer approach is through the use
1 a:
t
'9 t
1 9 k
Y � §
�iS Hi,.
4 r r
r�ist'i-,"'Ag",
f 4
i.;
s,<<.iA : ='i d"a f
s
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 20 of 80
O
of landscaping, which I think you will be able to adequately address as each of those
lots comes in for the CUP application in the future as well. With that I will -- I can see
there is some questions.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: I do have one question, but it's not really to the south. My one concern is
that I don't particularly favor the reduction of the width of the landscape buffer along
Highway 69 for a couple of reasons. One, it's an extremely visible entryway corridor
right off the freeway. And, second, it's a -- it's an historical byway that continues all the
way down to Kuna. The provisions of the ordinance do allow for alternative compliance,
but I'm hesitant to approve a reduced landscape buffer there without knowing what the
alternative compliance is. Has that received any specific thought yet?
Elg: It has. I think we are only off, if we calculated right, by just a few feet on this. It's
not a significant reduction.
Siddoway: Okay. I was thinking it went down to 25 feet. Oh, that's --
Elg: That's along Overland. So, we are rather close. So, we still need to work out
some of the details of that, but we will come up with a plan that will be very attractive
and a palatable alternate form of compliance.
Siddoway: Do you know what the minimum width is? Or does staff know?
Watters: It's at least 30, Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions for this applicant? Thank you.
Elg: Thank you.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we close the Public Hearing on PP 07-003.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on PP 07-003. All
those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Any discussion before a motion? Commissioner Moe, do you have any final
thoughts?
7
01,
o-
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 21 of 80
r:
Moe: Not necessarily. I'm pretty much in favor of the project. It's a great addition to
that comer, as a matter of fact.
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: No. As long as the width is at least 30 and there still will be alternative
compliance required by staff as it comes through for final plat. I don't have a problem
with that. I do think that the -- I would just add a comment to address Mr. McGraf 's
concern. A concrete wall alone would not buffer much sound. It actually can echo it.
But landscaping can reduce that noise quite a bit and as they look at the required
buffers between land uses along there, I just encourage staff to make sure that -- that
that is a dense buffer with landscaping that can help mitigate that noise.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup?
Borup: I have nothing. I mean we kind of looked at a lot of this when the rezone came
through and when we talked about -- well, I didn't realize it was clear back in '05,
though. I thought it was more recent than that.
Rohm: Thank you. I guess my only final comments on this is having been around
Meridian for a long fame, I gassed up at that comer for a long time and, you know, I'm
sure this is going to be a great development and it's going to improve the looks of that
corner, but, you know, just from a nostalgic perspective, I enjoyed going in there and
buying a pop and it's definitely a change for the future and Meridian's growing up and I
think this will be a nice improvement and -- but with that being said, I'm going to miss
the old gas station. Could we get a motion, please?
Moe: Mr. Chairman, after considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I move
to recommend approval to City Council of file number PP 07-003 as presented in the
staff report for the hearing date February 15th, 2007, with the following modification to
the conditions of approval. That being that the applicant will provide alternative
compliance along South Meridian Road prior to the City Council. End of motion.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council recommending
approval of PP 07-003, with including all staff report with the aforementioned
modification. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Thank
you all for coming.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 11: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-058 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 38.01 acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8
zone for Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S.
Meridian Road:
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 22 of 80
Item 12: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-057 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 115 single-family residential building lots
and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sagewood Subdivision by M & H Development, LLC - 4435 S. Meridian
Road:
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to reopen the continued Public Hearing from January
4th, 2007, Items No. AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057. Both of these items related to the
Sagewood Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Watters: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. The applications
before you are an annexation and zoning and preliminary plat request for Sagewood
Subdivision. The property is 36.34 acres in size and is currently zoned RUT in Ada
County. The subject property is located at 4435 South Meridian Road on the west side
of South Meridian Road, approximately a half mile south of Victory. The property is
bordered on the east by property that contains storage units, zoned RUT in Ada County.
On the west by agricultural land, zoned RUT in Ada County. On the north by Meridian
Heights Subdivision, zoned R-6 in Ada County. And on the south by residential
property and agricultural land zoned RUT in Ada County. The property currently has an
existing house and associated outbuildings at the southeast comer of the site. These
buildings will be removed. The applicant is requesting that this property be annexed
and zoned to the R-8 medium density residential zoning district, which complies with the
Comprehensive Plan map designation of medium density residential. A preliminary plat
is proposed for 115 single family residential building lots and seven common area lots
on 36.34 acres of land. All lots meet the minimum dimensional standards of the R-8
zone for the property size. All lots, except for Lots 3, 8 and 9, Block 5, meet the
minimum street frontage requirement of 50 feet. The applicant will be required to revise
the plan to meet this requirement. The gross density of the proposed subdivision is
3.16 dwelling units per acre. Lot sizes range from 5,655 to 16,035 square feet. A
variance is also requested to exceed the maximum block length allowed in a residential
district. Staff is recommending denial of this request, because the applicant can comply
with this requirement by adding a 15 foot wide pedestrian pathway within Block 1
midway here, which will provide pedestrian access from Meridian Road to South
Springfield Avenue. The Commission is not required to make a recommendation on this
application. The applicant -- put a copy of the landscape plan on here. The applicant is
proposing 5.6 acres or 8.6 percent of the site as usable open space. Incorporated into
the open space are walking paths, a ten foot wide multi -use pathway that runs along the
southwest comer of the site here and also the applicant isn't proposing one I don't
believe on here, but one is required along the state highway here. Walking paths are
also proposed within the subdivision. A gazebo and patio area here at the comer here
and playground equipment up at the north boundary here. A 40 foot wide buffer is
proposed along South Meridian Road and a varying 20 to 40 foot wide buffer is
proposed along West Harris Street here at the north of the property. A ten foot wide
multi -use pathway is required along South Meridian Road, as I previously stated.
Access to the site will be provided on the north by two public streets that intersect West
Harris Street. One stub street is provided at the west boundary and one is provided at
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 23 of 80
O
the south boundary for future connectivity. Direct lot access to South Meridian Road is
prohibited, except for the temporary emergency access point required by the fire
department. ACHD and ITD have reviewed and approved the access points proposed
on the plat. There are several homes in Meridian Heights Subdivision north of the site
up here that take direct lot access to Harris Street, which is a collector street here. The
applicant is proposing to combine some of the existing access points for the homes in
Meridian Heights to prevent individual driveways to the collector. Staff is recommending
approval of the subject annexation and zoning and preliminary plat applications based
on the conditions stated in the staff report. I will stand for questions now.
Rohm: Thank you, Sonya. Any questions of staff?
Siddoway: Just one. Sonya, where was the multi -use path required?
Watters: The multi -use pathway is required -- excuse me -- Commissioner Siddoway,
Commissioners, along the southwest comer of the site and, then, also, since this
development is along a state highway one is required along South Meridian Road here.
Siddoway: Okay. Thank you. And the one along Meridian Road will be detached?
Watters: It will be, yes.
Siddoway: Okay.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: I'm just kind of curious, Sonya is the southern portion of this subdivision -- is it
part of the mixed use in the staff response for the south Meridian plan? That area right
in there. Looking through your map I was kind of struck that it is actually part -- it looks
like it's a little bit of -- in the mixed used area that was --
Watters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners -- excuse me just one second here. The
site is -- excuse me just a moment.
Moe: I'm assuming it's, then, to the north of the mixed use area?
Watters: Commissioner Moe, Commissioners, it is -- it excludes that. This lies within
the medium density residential designation.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
�f
w5 kk
M
k i ,f;}rz. t„4ry
Y
Y
rd 4
� `^ t r"
M
k:.
W
s
E
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 24 of 80
0
Siddoway: One additional question. You mentioned the requirement to revise lots to
meet frontage requirements. Does staff feel that's a simple task, that there is additional
frontage in adjacent lots or are they going to wind up needing to remove a lot in order to
make that happen?
Watters: Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, I do believe that the applicant can
do that.
Siddoway: By adjusting?
Watters: Uh-huh. By adjusting.
Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please?
McKay: Good evening, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Becky McKay,
Engineering Solutions, 1029 North Rosario, Meridian. I'm representing the applicant on
this application. As Sonya indicated, this particular parcel lies along the south side of
Hams. Harris Street is just a partial right of way approximately 40 feet wide with about
25 feet of asphalt, so it's kind of a substandard roadway. There is rolled curb, gutter,
and sidewalk along the north side. Meridian Heights was platted in three phases. The
first phase in '72, 1 think the second in '76, and, then, the last one in the mid '90s. This
is the half mile at Highway 69. Therefore, as you well know, it's ITD's preference that if
there is any signals or any collectors and also the city's preference, that they be at that
half mile. So, in meeting with the neighbors out there, their primary concern was their
nine lots which currently have -- abut Harris and back directly into Harris Street. So,
their number one concern was can you come up with something that would allow us to
enter Harris and not create a hazard. So, what we did is we -- I was fortunate that I had
other developers in this section that I'm working with, we did a concept for Greg
Johnson, a concept for Lee Centers, and, then, Lee Centers owns two 80 acre parcels
that go onto the west. We also did just a rough bubble plan here for Walt Warner, so
we could kind of fit all these puzzle pieces together and look at the picture as a whole.
We had Washington Group International do our traffic study and they looked at the
impact of the three projects in their entirety, even though this is what's before you this
evening. Hams Street, Tanana Valley, will come in here with another roadway. They
had a condition of approval that they would trust fund for 50 percent of the light if it
could meet the warrant under the ITD standards. We would align with that and create a
new collector roadway. Therefore, retaining the rolled curb, gutter, and sidewalk, the 25
feet of asphalt and, then, we would construct an eight foot wide median and, then, 25
foot curb openings. This would create almost like a frontage roadway with landscape
buffering between the new corrector and the existing homes that front along Harris. So,
the collector roadway would, therefore, shift to the south and would be completely
rebuilt. Now, as the collector comes in and talking with ACHD, they envisioned that it
would continue in. They didn't want it coming straight in, so it would come in in this
fashion and, then, it would T off as another collector here. What we envisioned in the
middle here is this is designated as a -- like a neighborhood park area right here in the
mid section, so that would be the view corridor from this collector. You also had -- the
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 25 of 80
Williams pipeline runs along the southwest boundary of the subject property, goes up
diagonally like this. In talking with Anna, she indicated that it was the city's desire, even
though it's not shown on the current pathway plan, to make that a major multi -use
pathway, since we have a 75 foot corridor that we have to protect anyway, so that's why
we showed this comer and the multi -use pathway section here. That's just a little piece
in the overall puzzle. As this property develops you will see the pathway here and,
then, when we bring this parcel in for development, the pathway would continue on and,
then, would lead to a future neighborhood park. So, that's kind of what we envisioned.
As far as the density that's before you this evening, we are about 3.16 dwelling units per
acre. The Meridian Heights Subdivision, just to kind of give you an idea of the existing
density that's out there, is approximately 3.9 and that's based on the three phrases.
They have kind of a mix out there. There are some stick built homes. I believe there
are some mobile homes and some manufactured homes. So, it's kind of a -- because it
was done over a long period of time, a little bit of a hodge-podge. The neighborhood
was overly supportive I thought of the project. They all said we understand that at some
point in time this property would develop, come up with an idea to, obviously, improve
Harris, protect our access, and see what can be done to, obviously, facilitate getting that
light in. We will be required to trust fund for 1/6th of that light. We did provide ACHD
with a full traffic study and, then, our traffic engineer went back and did an analysis on
the warrants for the light. So, hopefully, ITD will allow a signal to go in sooner than
later. That's the hope of the neighborhood. As far as the project, our lot sizes range
from about 56, 55, 1 think all the way up to I mean like 12,000 square feet on the bigger
comer lot, but the medium lot size that you're looking at here is about 8,483 square feet.
We have got 8.6 percent open space. Our primary open space is here along that
corridor for Hams. We have got -- if Anna could put up the landscape plan -- or, sorry,
Sonya. So, that kind of shows you the landscape plan. We'd have a pocket park here.
It would be open to Harris, so you wouldn't have a real wall effect. Our landscaping
along here varies from 20 feet to 40 feet here. That's primarily due to elevation
changes. There is about a 40 foot elevation change from the southwest comer and
right down here to the northeast comer where there -- it's kind of a hole there. The
property's rising as you go south and I kind of envision that, you know, this is going to
create a nice view corridor. We have openings into the development and, then, placing
the play equipment down on the south end of this pocket park, so that it's surrounded by
the lots and have that non -sight obscuring type fencing. The multi -use pathway you see
here I planned on like a little gazebo there. When that multi -use pathway gets built it
would be nice to have little openings, I thought, of open space, gazebo, sitting areas
and stuff, intermittent places for people to sit down, rest, or watch their kids play,
whatever the case may be. We are required to have 30 feet along that Meridian Road
corridor. We have provided 40. 1 did that primarily because of the elevations and just
wanted a little bit of margin of error. In your UDC it mentions that there has to be a ten
foot berm or some type of other acceptable masonry type wall that is, I believe, ten foot
above the elevation -- center line elevation of the state highway. I indicated to Sonya
this is a low spot here, so we will have to kind of evaluate that. I know -- I looked
through the code, it does allow for some alternative compliance. So, I don't -- I'm not
sure exactly what that's going to look like. This elevation of Hams is kind of fixed where
it intersects with Meridian Road. So, I'm not sure exactly what we can do with this --
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 26 of 80
with this comer or low spot here. With this project there weren't a lot of options for us to
look at with the state highway here. We do have an existing house that's located here
down in this comer. It was -- we looked at trying to get a cul-de-sac down to service
that, but the cul-de-sac took up so much room that the net gain was only one lot. When
you weighed the cost of the improvement versus the gain of the lot, it didn't make a lot
of economic sense. My thought was when the properties here develop that that
probably makes sense that that be re -platted and included as part of the development
south, because it is kind of isolated. We provided stub streets to the south, looked at,
like I said, a bubble plan here to make sure that that would work. We have a stub street
going west and, then, obviously, we will take Harris to the western perimeter and it
would function as a collector roadway. As far as utilities, this is the Black Cat trunk. I
think if you notice in your staff report Mike indicates that the Black Cat trunk is not at this
location at this time. So, obviously, this project is subject to sewer -ability and extension
of necessary services and we understand that. Do you have any questions?
Rohm: Could you address the two lots that the staff report indicated needed to be
adjusted?
McKay: I believe it's the lots right here on the comer. As the street -- as the street
bends here I think we have got like 41, 42 feet. It's this lot and this lot here. So, the
bending -- as the street curves it creates a narrowing or a pie effect, so we just need to
kind of widen those necks out. I believe Sonya's correct that we could go in and adjust
those easily. And staff typically, you know, relies on us. If we can't meet frontage
requirement, then, we have to drop a lot in order to do so.
Rohm: Okay. And you're okay with that?
McKay: Yes, sir.
Rohm: Okay.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Two questions. One, the collector road south of the landscape median
handles two-way traffic south of the median, there is not one --
McKay: No.
Siddoway: Can you clarify that for me?
McKay: Yeah. Let me bring the board. This is basically the same thing that you see up
on the screen. It just kind of gives you a little larger view of what's transpiring. As you
can see, this is the existing roadway now that's Harris. It's just a partial roadway
section. The rolled curb, gutter, and existing sidewalk is all along the north. What we
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 27 of 80
0
intend to do is come in off of those intersections and build an eight foot landscape island
and, then, it would have 25 foot like access opening. So, these lots would back out onto
-- almost like a little frontage road or drive, then, they would come out front ways. This
would be a 36 back-to-back. So, Hams, basically, shifts south and we have done this
all the way down to protect those homes that currently front on Hams. At the time they
were -- this was approved, you know, in the 70s, they did allow front -on housing on
residential type collectors and, you know, now that's not allowed. This has worked in
other areas. Duncan Street is a good example off of State Street. There are some
duplexes where they went in and built something very similar to this and it functions
very well. It's been used in Boise on two or three different locations.
Siddoway: So, Harris Street -- the new Harris Street does handle two-way traffic as a
collector of its own?
McKay: Yes. And it would have detached sidewalk, vertical curb --
Siddoway: Okay. And the width of the frontage roads, for lack of a better term here, is
what?
McKay: Approximately 25 feet.
Siddoway: Okay. That's all. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: Before we continue, just for the audience that wasn't able to see that portion of
the presentation, basically, the existing roadway is going to be a frontage road with an
eight foot buffer and they will build a 36 foot roadway south of the eight foot buffer.
McKay: Yes, sir. That is correct.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: It was just a larger view of what's already up here.
Rohm: Yeah. That's all it was, so -- thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions of this applicant? Okay. We didn't have anybody
signed up for this particular project, but at this time the floor is certainly open to anyone
that would like to speak. And we do not have anybody that's come forward, so I think if
Becky has any final comments now is the time or we can move forward from there.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
�a
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 27 of 80
0
intend to do is come in off of those intersections and build an eight foot landscape island
and, then, it would have 25 foot like access opening. So, these lots would back out onto
-- almost like a little frontage road or drive, then, they would come out front ways. This
would be a 36 back-to-back. So, Hams, basically, shifts south and we have done this
all the way down to protect those homes that currently front on Hams. At the time they
were -- this was approved, you know, in the 70s, they did allow front -on housing on
residential type collectors and, you know, now that's not allowed. This has worked in
other areas. Duncan Street is a good example off of State Street. There are some
duplexes where they went in and built something very similar to this and it functions
very well. It's been used in Boise on two or three different locations.
Siddoway: So, Harris Street -- the new Harris Street does handle two-way traffic as a
collector of its own?
McKay: Yes. And it would have detached sidewalk, vertical curb --
Siddoway: Okay. And the width of the frontage roads, for lack of a better term here, is
what?
McKay: Approximately 25 feet.
Siddoway: Okay. That's all. Thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: Before we continue, just for the audience that wasn't able to see that portion of
the presentation, basically, the existing roadway is going to be a frontage road with an
eight foot buffer and they will build a 36 foot roadway south of the eight foot buffer.
McKay: Yes, sir. That is correct.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: It was just a larger view of what's already up here.
Rohm: Yeah. That's all it was, so -- thank you.
McKay: Thank you.
Rohm: Any additional questions of this applicant? Okay. We didn't have anybody
signed up for this particular project, but at this time the floor is certainly open to anyone
that would like to speak. And we do not have anybody that's come forward, so I think if
Becky has any final comments now is the time or we can move forward from there.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I move to close the Public Hearing.
0 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 28 of 80
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on AZ 06-058
and PP 06-057. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I have one last clarification question for staff. I'd just like to -
- the point at which this project is contiguous, is it a comer to comer --
Watters: Commissioner Siddoway, Commissioners, yes, it is. It's at the northeast
comer it's contiguous with Tanana Valley.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Could we get a motion to --okay.
Siddoway: I will try it.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, after considering all the staff and applicant testimony, I move
to recommend approval to the City Council of file numbers AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057,
as presented in the staff report for the hearing date of February 15th, 2007, with no
modification.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to forward on to City Council recommending
approval of AZ 06-058 and PP 06-057, both items related to the Sagewood Subdivision.
All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carred. Thank you for
coming in.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 13: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: AZ 06-059 Request
for Annexation and Zoning of 224.26 acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8
zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence
Development - west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
Item 14: Continued Public Hearing from January 4, 2007: PP 06-059 Request
for Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential lots and 31 common lots on
224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock
Castle Greens Subdivision by Providence Development - west of S.
Eagle Road and south of Amity Road:
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 29 of 80
Rohm: Wow, we are doing pretty good here tonight. All right. At this time I'd like to --
I'd like to open the Public Hearing -- the continued Public Hearing from January 4th,
2007, for AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059, both items related to the Blackrock Castle Greens
Subdivision and begin with the staff report.
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. As stated, this
presentation is in regards to the Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision. The applicant
Providence Development has applied for annexation and zoning to R-2, R-4, and R-8
for 224.26 acres of property currently zoned R -R in Ada County. The applicant has also
applied -- submitted a preliminary plat for a portion, 178.10 acres of that annexation
area. The subject preliminary plat proposes 644 single family residential lots, 30
common lot, and one proposed city park lot within the proposed R-2, R-4, and R-8
zones. The site is located on the west side of Eagle Road, approximately a half mile
south of Amity Road and currently as shown on the presentation slide, there are 44
single family home sites and associated landscape and roadways previously approved
in Ada County as Blackrock Subdivision No. 1. The existing home sites totaling 46.16
acres -- sorry about that. The existing home sites totaling that acreage and roadways
include a request for annexation and zoning, but are not included in the subject
preliminary plat. The subject property is within the area proposed to be a part of the
City of Meridian's area of impact. I will give a little bit of context on this area. As you
can see currently it appears there is no annexation path and I'd like to clarify that. This
project received the annexation path through the previously approved Cotswold Village
Subdivision, which is located to the north above Amity Road here, then, through the
previously approved White Bark Subdivision, which is located on this parcel here. So,
_.
that's -- this would be the point of connection to the current corporate city boundaries of
the City of Meridian. That's, basically, what's to the north would be this one previously
approved subdivision yet to be -- yet to be constructed, and, then, various rural
residential parcels used for both home sites and agriculture. To the east is Eagle Road,
obviously, and the single family homes on large rural parcels. To the south are single
family homes also on large rural parcels. And to the west, once again, single family
homes on large rural parcels. I think it's important at this time to point out this is a
significant transition for this area, as you can see. The approval of 644 lots down in this
area will be a large transition from rural residential to more of an urban density. And it
really will be the first extension of the City of Meridian this far south beyond Amity Road.
And that is just a point of clarification and something that definitely needs to be
considered, in staffs opinion. With that said, this area is part of the City of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan and the proposed -- the proposed subdivision does comply with
that -- with the densities proposed on the Comprehensive Plan. It's an interesting
designation. Because of the topography and other things, the Comprehensive Plan -- I
don't have a slide, we didn't have it updated quite yet on our JS, but the Comprehensive
Plan shows a line of medium density residential running kind of in this direction, with this
area here being designated medium density residential and this area to the south and
west being designated low density residential on the Comprehensive Plan. And the
applicant has proposed zoning designations in compliance with that. This area, which is
not a part of the plat, which is -- and which is a part of the annexation area is designated
R-2. There is also a line of R-2 lots that you will see in the preliminary plat, R-4 area,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 30 of 80
and, then, R-8 area as you go closer towards Eagle Road. Let's move on now to the
aerial photograph. As you can see, not much to see here. You can see there was
preliminary site work being done on that existing subdivision, but a rural area with
numerous existing homes in the surrounding areas. This is the -- one view of the
preliminary plat. It is hard to see. There are contour lines being shown. It's, actually, a
good thing that we can see this, because it -- there is definitely a very significant ridge
that runs through this property that, basically, separates -- separates the existing home
sites from this propose subdivision. And that ridge is prominent and on a site visit I was
out there and could see that very clearly. We can move on. This shows the roadway
network and some of the other features of the plat. A quick discussion of the street
network. The main entrance into this subdivision is going to be right here at the
intersection of Eagle Road and East Teconic Drive. This Teconic Drive, which runs
westward into the subdivision, will be designated as a residential collector with no front-
on housing and a 20 foot landscape buffer on either side. That drive will serve the
entire subdivision, including the existing home sites. That drive is -- much of the
pavement for that drive has already been poured and this particularly -- this street was
approved through Ada County to get these lots out here -- out here created. Other than
that, there are various other streets as you can see. Maybe something different for the
City of Meridian, there is not a single cul-de-sac in the development. All the streets --
the street network is kind of a modified grid that, basically, there is no dead ends, you
can get around pretty well through the street network. And ACHD has taken a close
look at this project. A traffic study was done and even after this project went through
ACHD's commission, additional traffic -- traffic counts were taken to see how this project
would impact Eagle Road, which is, obviously, a road of concern for the entire area.
And after doing all that, staff received the most up to date information and ACHD found
that, indeed, Eagle Road could handle this and they even considered a lot of other
development that is proposed for the area in those counts. For more specific details
you could see the ACHD staff report and also ACHD submitted a memo specifically
describing that situation. Let's move on to the -- let's see. This is just some -- little
sections of the plat maybe a little bit clearer. This is a good one to see the proposed
park site right here located in the center off of that collector street, East Teconic Drive.
And this is the other side of the plat. Here is the landscape plan. The applicant has
submitted -- I'll just jump through here. Oh, I thought I put it in there. Yes, that would be
great. We are going to a color rendering of the landscape, just to show a little bit clearer
picture of what the landscape areas are that are proposed. As you can see, this would
be the proposed city park site, designated to be about approximately 8.7 acres. Along
with that city -- that proposed city park, there is also some smaller pocket parks or open
spaces that are included throughout the development of various sizes from, you know,
one to two acres, possibly bigger. Tree lined streets along the collectors and they also
run a tree lined street up to the north like that. A landscape buffer is required along
Eagle Road. And another feature of this -- of the landscaping of this -- in the open
space of the development is a required ten foot wide multi -use pathway that runs along
the south side of the Ten Mile Creek, which traverses across this northeastern section
of the property. One issue that came up with this ten foot wide pathway is as you can
see there is an outparcel that wasn't included in this development. It's not under the
same ownership. And the ten foot pathway originally just terminated into that parcel
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 31 of 80
and staff, after looking at that -- and it's happened a couple other places in the city,
where you have a -- that pathway gets almost to the arterial street and doesn't quite k
make it. And those situations, especially with small parcels like that of one or 1.5 acres,
oftentimes they may never redevelop. You know, we don't control that. So, staff, after
looking at that, recommended to the applicant that they come up with a solution and try
to make that pathway at least allow for pedestrian connectivity to Eagle Road, a pretty
straight -- in a -- kind of a straight -- or as straight of a line as possible. So, the
applicant, what they did propose, was a micro pathway connection from the terminus of
the multi -use pathway to the sidewalk network and, then, it's on the south of the
outparcel another micro pathway connecting to Eagle Road. After reviewing that, staff
thought it was a reasonable solution and because that outparcel is under the control of
another property owner, the applicant wasn't able to push the ten foot wide multi -use
pathway all the way through. And when that property does develop, that pathway would
be required to go all the way through. Other than that, there are various development
agreement provisions that were also included with this -- with this preliminary plat and
annexation request. Some of the -- some of them -- most of them we have already
touched on. One is the inclusion of that ten foot wide multi -use pathway. Another one
is the -- that the applicant agrees to construct the 8.7 acre neighborhood park on this
site. And just for a point of clarification, the process to get a neighborhood park actually
dedicated to the City of Meridian, it requires not only this Commission's
recommendation, but also the recommendation of the parks commission, which I don't
believe, as far as I know, and verified this today, that the parks commission has looked
at this specific design for the park. So, there are some steps that still need to be taken
to make this park actually be eligible for dedication to the city. And the City Council is
the final -- is the final say, basically, on that, whether the City Council will accept that or
not. And the applicant, hopefully, will be able to provide some more detail on exactly
how that process is going. As I stated, it's kind of a parallel process to this one and,
oftentimes, there is not as much communication as we would hope. Other than that --
let's see here. There are some Public Works conditions that also were included in the
development agreement, which if there are questions I'm sure our Public Works
representative would be happy to answer questions regarding those at a later time. I
think we could jump back to the -- we will just jump back to the presentation here.
Actually, this is about where I wanted to go. The applicant has also submitted some
elevations regarding this project. As you can see, various different designs of two story
homes. And other than that, I don't think there was any other outstanding issues. Staff
is recommending approval of this -- of this project and I'll stand for any questions.
Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Any questions of staff before we ask the applicant to come
forward? Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: Yes. Thank you. First is just a clarification and you did cover this, but this
area is currently in the city's Comprehensive Plan. It was done as part of the southeast
Meridian comp plan amended; is that right?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, that is correct. I do
discuss the history of this area -- thank you, Caleb. This is the -- up on the slide now we
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 32 of 80
do have that -- that Comprehensive Plan area and this is the area we are talking about
right here. So, the short answer is, yes, it is within the City of Meridian's
Comprehensive Plan and it's also in the proposed area of impact. That line -- takes
more than just us to make that line move. So, that's why it's proposed.
Siddoway: Right. Thank you. The city has acted on it and it's not been adopted by Ada
County yet.
Lucas: Exactly. Thank you.
Siddoway: And your findings in regard to the density of the proposal in relation to this is
what?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, I also discuss that
a little bit in the staff report. Looking at it, it's approximately -- and I say approximately --
50 percent is low density and 50 percent is medium density. That's, obviously, not
exact, but if you move to the -- if we go to the plat, you will be able to see that -- we
could even leave it here. What the applicant is doing is there is -- the R-2 area is
already existing in this area and the applicant has provided some R-2 zoning here and,
then, a band, kind of, of R-4 zoning, which seems to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan and I ran the numbers and they are in the staff report, but this
area of the Comprehensive Plan does match up with the density as proposed on the
plat and this area of the Comprehensive Plan matches with the density proposed on the
plat. So, what they did was they grouped that R-2 and R-4 in the low density area and,
then, grouped the R-8, which is a little bit higher density in the medium density area to
comply with that.
Siddoway: Okay. One follow up. Last week we saw a staff response to the south
Meridian area plan that proposed some modifications to this. Is it staffs intention to go
with -- to push forward what we saw last week or to go with what we are -- has been
acted on by the city tonight -- or previously?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Siddoway, it was staffs
intention -- and we reviewed this under the current adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Although we realize there may be some proposed modifications, those modifications are
definitely at a conceptual level and staff looking at this didn't feel it was fair to the
applicant after they had been told one thing, to go and try to change it at point. So, we
did look at it under the current approved Comprehensive Plan that was passed -- was
approved by the City Council just recently, actually, so I hope that answers that
question.
Siddoway: Okay. And my final question would be on the plat regarding stub streets.
Just want to get staffs interpretation that we have accommodated stub streets where
ever feasible. I know we have got this major ridge in there as a constraint, but it looks
like there are stub streets here and, then, none to -- this one crosses the bench and,
then, this is a stub street?
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 33 of 80
Lucas: Correct.
Siddoway: And, then, we have got one here. Okay.
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, staff did look very closely at the stub streets.
There is a total of nine and after doing a site visit, talking with the applicant about this
ridge, and we feel pretty comfortable that they have done what they can, especially in
this area here where the ridge is so prominent. This one here is even -- not that if -- it's
right on the -- kind of the base of that ridge and it's, basically, the only spot that is
available for a stub street, just feasibly to be extended. And, then, there is various stub
streets that are proposed to the north and we -- staff did insure that each of those
parcels to the north -- there is one that's under the same ownership, but each owner at
least of those parcels to the north does receive a stub street.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure whether this is for staff or probably the applicant, but
I'm just kind of curious within the existing Comp Plan that's noted, both the park area, as
well as school property, were somewhat planned within the Comp Plan on that area.
Was there any discussions with the district at all in regards to whether or not they were
looking for property in that area?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Commissioners, Commissioner Moe, I'm not sure if the
applicant has been working with the school district on that property. The school district
did have an opportunity to comment on this application and I didn't hear from them
regarding that -- regard a possible school site on this site, so --
Moe: In their comments they do not -- they aren't noting that, so I was curious.
Lucas: Exactly.
Moe: Thank you.
Rohm: Any other questions of staff before we have the applicant come forward?
Okay. Would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle, Eagle, Idaho, is my business
address. We have been working on this application for quite some time. This applicant
or this developer and other land owners participated in creating that southeast Meridian
Comp Plan change. We brought before you at that time, basically, this layout. From
the initial layout that we had and with some of the staffs revisions to that
Comprehensive Plan, we needed to make some changes. If you could go to that
overhead of the Comp Plan. Just to kind of help orient ourselves, we are located here.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 34 of 80
The boundary of our subdivision is here. The predominant ridge runs -- Boise Ranch
Golf Course over in here and, then, all the way to Nampa. We are at the toe of the
slope for the majority of the lots. We do have six lots that extends that non-farm
development of phase one of Blackrock that are in here, so we have got six lots that are
in the R-2 zone. As you look at the colored maps that we provided, the landscape plan '
-- Justin, if you could go to that. You can see over in the legend the lot sizes and
colored toning -- basically what you're seeing is the different zones. We come in with an
R-4 zone that comes down this residential collector here, comes all the way in, goes ,
down the back of those lots and all the way over. And so this is the R-4 zone. The R-2
zone is the existing development and the six that are on top. We are in compliance with
the Comprehensive Plan. The overall annexation area that's being annexed, we have
an overall density of three units per acre. We have -- in the development plan we had
this existing alignment of the road that came in and is the entrance to the lots, the 44
lots, and these additional six that will be added that are up on top of the slope. At the
bottom of the toe of the slope we put in a walking path that goes all the way along those
-- the bottom of the slope that transitions between the two housing types and we feel it's
a great amenity. We have micro -path connections. It looks like my pointer wants to
quit. We have micro -path connections that link to that and, then, along the southerly
boundary we, again, provided another micro -path connection. We have a pocket park
here with a gazebo located south of the main collector. We have a pocket park up here
with a tot lot and, then, this particular one we have a basketball -- half court basketball.
We have made modifications as they have come along from the staff. The police
department had concern. We initially had them closer to the homes and we have
moved them out away from the homes and closer to the streets. We had been working }
with the parks department and the parks commission, had one meeting before the parks
commission. They were happy with the location of the neighborhood park. If you're
familiar with the Comprehensive Plan and what it requires for a neighborhood park, it's a
walking park, it's not the type of park that you would have a regional park, it is made for
people within the half mile of any direction to be able to walk to. The majority of the
area to the south and west of us is up on top of the ridge, but with our micropath that we
have in -- as kind of a boundary of our subdivision on the westerly side and the path a
3i$
here, we have provided means for people to get there from the regional Ten Mile
pathway that will go along there. We have connections that funnel people to this park.
We tried to make that centrally located and something that the parks department would
want. They asked for a tennis court. They said that they have had some responses
that instead of maybe a basketball, that a tennis court might be something that they
would like to see. There is two baseball fields drawn on there. Basically, what they
asked for is a backstop. They don't want to have baseball games in these facilities, it's
just maybe a little league practice or a family go out and play. It's not the type of facility
that they put on their schedules and schedule events at those facilities. There is a
pavilion that is located to the north of the parking area and to the west side of the
parking area -- to the west side is a booster pump station that the Public Works
Department will have ownership of. We have tried to create a mixture of lots. As you
look at the open spaces that we have, when you take this pathway into consideration,
the tree lined streets that we have, the greenbelt here, the parks -- did a quick
calculation, it's 78 percent of all the lots in this development have one side of their
is
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 35 of 80
property that is shared with an open space. So, one of their neighbors is an open space
and I think that that's something that you really don't see and I think that we have done
a nice job. We have tried to create the connectivity. This residential collector helps get
people back into the comer without having to drive passed people's homes. You can
live in a spot back here, which these stub streets maybe eventually in the future may be
quicker to go out to Amity through those future developments, but in the meantime with
this one being out here, you can come up the residential and drive passed less than 15
homes and be to the very northerly portion of the development back in a comer without
driving passed all of the homes that are in the development. And that's what these
roads have done. The police department asked for some traffic calming measures. We
have got these island bubbles that we put in on this section of street that they were
concerned about. We have also put them here. Talked about putting cross gutters in
some of the other locations to act like a speed bump. We can do that to handle the
drainage and slow cars down at the same time. We feel that we have done a very nice
design and tried to stub to all our neighbors where possible. This northwesterly stub is
as far north as we can go and trying to get it so that you can have some connection
there. We have two out -parcels that are a part of our project. By putting in this location
here we have tried to provide them so that when that property redevelops and the city
requires that they be cut off from the street and basically extend the landscaping and
extend the pathway, that they can get some lots in there and develop as flexible as they
can. Probably a knuckle is one of the options that we have kind of looked at would
allow that to redevelop and, then, the homes would fan around that with a micro -path
running in their backyard. We have the stub to the north of this -- I think it's ten acres,
15 acres. And, then, we have a stub street in the middle here. One of the things that
would probably be nice -- one of the things that kind of came up in my mind -- this
micro -path connection here to the greenbelt is probably a good permanent location, but
this one that we put in at the northerly portion there of the -- next to that house, when
that property redevelops I don't know if there is really going to be a need for that one
and maybe that one being a temporary one that could go away in the future would
maybe be a thought, but if we need it, then, you know, obviously, we will keep it there.
But one of the thoughts I had had is that maybe we could quitclaim that to the neighbors
some day in the future to make their lots a little bit bigger. They'd have to do some
improvements and make that go away and maybe they wouldn't want to do that. It
would be all paved and landscaped as a part of us doing our development. I'd stand for
any questions that you might have.
Rohm: Thank you. The first question that I have is on that proposed park that would be
turned over to the city, did you say that there were some parking spaces adjacent to
that park or --
Brown: There is a parking lot in there, if you look closely at that plan. And, then, I also
have a blowup of that, if you'd like to look at that.
Rohm: Yeah. Let's take a look at the blowup of that, if you please.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 36 of 80
Brown: Yeah. You have the residential collector that comes in here on the south. The
booster pump station that sits on this site. And, then, you have the parking area for that
park.
Rohm: It looks like approximately 30 or so parking spaces. I didn't count them, but --
Brown: Your eyes are better than mine, so I will trust you there. I'm not really sure.
Rohm: Okay. Thanks. I really asked the question more from the standpoint that I think
that it's important that everybody else sees that this park has accessibility, rather than it
just be internal to the subdivision people themselves and having that parking lot at least
people can come in and utilize it and get beneficial use out of it.
Brown: With a neighborhood park you have -- again, it's just specifically for like a mile
section. The city approved one to the mile to the north. It sets in the Messina Meadows
development. This park will be about a million and a half dollars in donation from the
developer and, then, he will put in all the improvements and the hard improvements is
what the city says is a normal part of the process for them to reimburse them through
park money. So, the things that the parks department or the city would pay for is the
restrooms, the fountain, parking lot -- parking lot we are doing, aren't we? The parking
lot we are doing and the tennis court they would be doing. So, they are like 300,000
and we are near a million and a half when you can take the land in consideration in
donation.
Rohm: Thank you. Mr. Siddoway.
Siddoway: So, you would be doing -- would you be doing the irrigation system and the
grass in the park as well?
Brown: Yeah. Uh-huh.
Siddoway: Okay.
Brown: We have had numerous meetings with the parks department. We had those
meetings well before we started submitting the subdivision. We were, basically, looking,
you know, parks and schools, did they want to do a joint facility. We started down that
road initially with them prior even to drawing the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner
Moe made a comment about, you know, there was on the Comp Plan a park and a
school site. When they put those things on their plan, as you're well aware, they are
looking for something in the mile. Since that time and since we have submitted the
application, we have met with Wendell. With the topography that's in the area and the
other schools that he feels that he's getting -- he has a 33 acre site on Amity Road. He
also feels there is another site across the street that he might have an opportunity to get
from the landowner there. There is also the school that is located in the Tuscany
development, that he did not need a school at this time.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 37 of 80
Rohm: Thanks, Kent. Other questions?
Siddoway: Yes. So, can you point out quickly the multi -use pathways that you will be
building? Are you building the one along the Ten Mile Creek adjacent to your property?
Brown: Correct.
Siddoway: And along the toe of the slope --
Brown: Correct.
Siddoway: -- for this entire project? And, then, multiple micro -paths.
Brown: Correct.
Siddoway: So, is this location the bottom side of the existing slope out there?
Brown: It is. There was some grading that took place on the hill when they done this
and for the most part this is the toe of the slope. It might be slightly elevated. This
whole area here is a continuation of that fanning effect that you get at the bottom of a
slope and so it is slightly elevated, compared to like this being the low spot on the site.
You can go out there today and you can -- it was very easy for the parks director and
myself to visualize the park, because they have been growing turf on the property and
so you can see the grass, do away with a ditch or two and you can kind of see what the
park would look like.
Siddoway: One last follow-up question. Those lots along the toe of the slope, I just
remember on one of the previous slides in the PowerPoint presentation it had the
topography. There were several lots that had quite a bit of topography on them. The
lots that you have platted, are you convinced that they are build -able for slopes?
Brown: Yes. And the slope was -- prior to -- that topography was prior to development
of the other. We have gotten new topography, but I haven't been able to, you know, put
that into this plat yet from what the surveyors had been out. Those lots are all 14,000
square feet at the bottom of the slope and they are very deep and over 140 feet deep.
So, yes, they will easily have that ability to do that.
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Yeah. Kent, just one other quick question, As far as the park itself with the city,
the city, then, would take over and maintain that, but as far as the pocket parks and
whatnot, that would be taken care of by the association?
Brown: That is correct.
� p
i
gyp,
1 l+
�. ija
Meridian Planning & Zoning M
February 15, 2007
Page 38 of 80
Moe: Okay.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Would Barbara
Fulcher like to come forward? Okay. From the audience she said she wanted to come
forward, but her son's going to speak first and that's certainly acceptable.
Fulcher: Scott Fulcher. 5505 South Eagle Road. Mr. Commissioner. Excuse my
voice. I'm a little under the weather here. Could I go back a few slides. Would that be
possible?
Rohm: You need to speak directly into the microphone.
Fulcher: Could I go back a few slides, please? I'm known as the outparcel, is who I
am. Yeah. Right there. Beings we have been out in the country so long I don't have
one of these fancy pointers.
Moe: Right there you should have a small one.
Fulcher: I don't even know how to use it. I'm the comer piece right there. Thank you
very much. I'm really concerned right there. I mean they are going to have R-8 two
story homes all around me I have been told. But I'm a little confused and maybe I don't
know if I'm in the right place, because I was approached to buy my part by the
developer, but it was not Provident Development, so I guess I'm a little confused. I was
approached by Hubble Homes. Is this the same, Commissioner? Can you -- do you
know?
Rohm: Couldn't tell you.
Fulcher: Couldn't tell you. Okay. So, I don't even know if I have a right to be speaking
here, I guess. But I have a concern, because as I understand the presentation, there is
one approach to Eagle Road and it's just above my house and I don't know how I'll get
out on that road. I don't know how my aged parents right down the street will get out or
the 90 year old lady across the street. I'm concerned about traffic. I'm concerned about
-- I wanted to sell the property, because I don't want to be living there in this situation. I
was told, though, if the greenbelt's going to go around me, I wasn't needed. And so any
negotiations I had with Hubble Homes was dropped at that point. I would need to have
a way to safely get out if I was going to be there. I would need a privacy fence of some
kind. I would certainly prefer not to have stacked R-8 homes, two stories high, all the
way around my perimeter, a greenbelt around my perimeter. I think it destroys the
value my property. And so I'm just really concerned. I see this beautiful sign here, it
says Meridian, Idaho, 100 years. Well, we have had six generations on that piece of
farm ground out there and we helped build this here town. We really did. And it's just a
surprise to me to see that that many homes in that small of an area, when you go out
there now and it's nothing but beautiful farm ground, and it's just -- it's just going to be a
tough pill to swallow, I think, for my clan, but if -- I would certainly like to work with the
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 39 of 80
developer, versus have any issues, because where I'm located -- and I think most
everyone here would agree -- pretty well changes my life tremendously. And so that's
my concerns.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this individual?
Borup: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Just a clarification. It sounds like you had mentioned that
the family had been farming, so you originally owned this property?
Fulcher: We originally owned most of that property, about half of it, yes. That was our
farm ground.
Borup: And so it was all one parcel at that time?
Fulcher: Yes.
Borup: So, when that -- so, when that was sold, you chose not to sell it at that time,
then?
Fulcher: No. That was sold -- my aged parents sold the farm and the truth of the story
is it was a developer or two back and they sold it on one condition, as we had coffee
and donuts in the front room, and that was that that would become a Banbury
Subdivision. And that's why we sold it. That was the promises given to us. It changed.
Borup: I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean, but --
Fulcher: It means Banbury is a lot different than R-8. That's what it means.
Borup: Okay. But at that time you didn't want to sell your parcel.
Fulcher: It was never approached. At that time --
Borup: Well, wasn't it all one parcel -- I mean that would have been the time to
negotiate the sale, it seems like to me.
Fulcher: I didn't want to sell my acre and a half when it was going to become a Banbury
Subdivision.
Borup: Okay. I understand.
Fulcher: That's the way it is.
Borup: Thank you.
Fulcher: It becomes a valuable piece of property at that time where now it's not. And I
would like to develop it, but I understand I'm agricultural and everything around me now
ary
f
�w
:t
j
r r
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 40 of 80
is going to be R-8, so, you know, it's a situation we will have to deal with.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Fulcher: Any other questions of me?
Rohm: No, sir.
Fulcher: Thank you.
Rohm: Now, Barbara, would you like to come forward?
B. Fulcher: Commissioners, I'm Barbara Fulcher. I live at 5215 South Eagle Road.
That little corner up there is us. Let's see. Scott said he had -- he didn't know how to
use one of these, obviously, I don't. This triangle is us. We will be bordering all along
here. I have another son that has property right in here. And, of course, this is Scott's
that he just told you about. I really appreciated Justin's opening remarks, that this
project will mark a significant change in the character and land use for this area. We
have a lot of concerns. When I saw the homes up there on the screen that were shown,
they didn't look anything at all like the Hubble developments that we have looked at over
on Maple Grove and Five Mile Road and, you know, it's -- it's hard. It's really hard. And
just as Scott said, we did -- we sold to a friend and it was -- we are going to do upscale -
- no. No. No. No. This was all county. We were going to have the development on
the hill. This was going to be in farmland for 15 years. My husband couldn't farm any
longer and so we sold on that promise and we sold on that promise to a very reduced
price, because I thought that would be the easiest transition that probably would never
see it developed. Well, obviously, it has changed hands. We don't have any control
over that. We don't have any rights over the buyer at this point, so I realize that. We
don't have any rights as sellers. As adjoining landowners I feel like we do have some
rights and so I'd just like to point out a few things. Scott mentioned the value of our
land. It will plummet along side of a Hubble Subdivision. It will. That's only common
sense. Our traffic problems -- I don't know quite what the ACHD was thinking, but I had
a hard time getting out on the road at 6:30 this evening to come in here and, believe
me, in morning hours and traffic hours, they never tried to cross the road to get their
paper. And so this totally changes when we are going to put 644 more homes right
there next to us with one access to the highway and that one access they tell me there
will be a stop light there. This is going to back up traffic passed our driveways -- all of
our driveways along there, Scott's and ours, and the lady across the street, the
neighbors who are north, it is going to be horrendous, because I know we have had --
we have had soccer people out there when you can't get out the driveway at all. And so
Eagle Road is a problem and it's just going to be more so. On staff report page eight, it
says: Staff believes that a development agreement is necessary to insure that this
property is developed in a fashion that is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation and does not negatively impact nearby properties. I want you to go to my
written testimony, because it's a lot more in detail than what I -- I felt like I had three
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 41 of 80
minutes to do tonight and in staff report page nine on the second bullet it says: Wells
may be used for non-domestic purposes, such as landscape irrigation. I have a real
concern about this. What is going to be the effect on the level of our existing wells if
hundreds of houses are -- can have wells to irrigate their lawns, what's going to happen
to our well, because that's what we depend on all the time. The density -- the density of
this project is absolutely absurd out in that area. It seems like most developments, the
perimeter is larger developments and it gets denser as it goes to the center of the
development and -- but you see that -- that would not serve the purpose of this -- of this
developer, because he wants his large lots up there facing the bluff where they will have
a better view than those out on the perimeter of the area. So, you will find that all of the
R -8s are the perimeter and that is what will be facing us. I feel as existing landowner
we deserve more consideration than that. I think we deserve the large -- larger lots, as
well as the potential development on Blackrock. The way it is now, I just briefly
counted, we are going to have 25 homes along our line there, probably the back sides
of them, two story houses, and, I'm song, but if it's anything like the one on Lake Hazel
and Five Mile, it's boxes and that's just the appearance that it gives. In health and
safety, this development offers little to enhance -ability or the availability for any family
activities. In those lots bordering us and around the perimeter, those houses are so
close together there are no lawns, absolutely no lawns, and, you know, I'm not opposed
to low income families. However, I think that the developer should provide a larger lot,
more attractive housing, and maybe just a little less profit. This development does not
match the stature of Meridian at all. And just a comment on the parks. This comes
from a mom. I hear all of this professional testimony and everything and I think, wow,
why should I say anything, but that is snuggled back there in the middle of those
houses, there is no public view to any main highways at all. I mean I look at the park
that's being developed on Victory and Eagle, it's right up there in the comer where it's in
full view of the highways where everybody can see into them. I think of Storey Park
where it's in full view of everybody. And that's snuggled back there amidst all those
houses, which probably are going to be empty a good share of the time and when kids
come home from school where else can they go. There is -- they don't have any lawns,
so they have to -- if they wanted to play, that would be where they would go. And, I'm
song, but that is exactly where would be a perfect place for Joseph Duncans to loiter.
And so, anyway, my next point, compatibility, protecting existing residents. And on --
-- staff report,
Rohm: You're going
three minutes already.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 42 of 80
B. Fulcher: Okay. I will do that. I will do that. All right. The goal is -- and the objective
is to protect existing residential properties from incompatible land use development on
adjacent parcels. And, then, here again, Commission and Council, on page seven, said
to rely on any verbal or written testimony that may be provided at the Public Hearings.
And that's what you're getting right now. There has been no consideration given to
existing property owners. Proof. All larger lots are self-serving to the exclusive housing
development on Blackrock. This development is totally backwards. Most developments
have higher density in the middle and flow out to larger lots. Of course, this doesn't
meet their criteria for Blackrock. This developer is trying to mix apples and oranges.
He's trying to combine an upscale development on that hill, subsidized by the many
many many low income housing lots on the flats. Summary. It seems to me that the
City of Meridian would encourage the high density towards the center of the city and
flow out to lower density on the perimeter of their Comprehensive Plan. Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you. Any questions of this individual before she sits down? Thank you.
Russ Fulcher, did you want to speak?
R. Fulcher: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Commissioners. My name is Russ Fulcher,
4035 South Linder Road, Meridian. And that's my momma and I kind of like her. I have
-- this triangle piece right here is me and so I am the owner there. I'm also state senator
for -- for this area, so I kind of have a couple of hats that I wear today. As my mother
pointed out, we did sell this in 2003 as a retirement vehicle for my parents and we knew
we were giving up our right to this. We aren't arguing that. But we did, unfortunately,
sell to a gentleman who opted not to keep his commitment, so we are heartbroken over
it, just quite frankly. This has been in the family since 1919 or 1920 or so. And, you
know, my family put their blood and sweat into that dirt for a long time. And so it gets a
little emotional for us, so we are opposed to the development in the current form. This,
Commissioners, I would just appeal to you is what happens when -- when we try to
annex outside areas of impact and I and my colleagues are so pressured to try to
change that law and the impact of this is like dropping a city inside the country, because
that's, basically, what this is and there is two issues that I'd just like you to consider.
One is the compatibility issue, the other is the transition -- the density transition issue
specifically. This development is tremendously different than the surrounding area.
Unfortunately, I don't think you can probably pan out -- pan out any further, but what you
see is just a development. If we were to pan out further -- well, there you go. We are
dropping this thing out in the middle of the dirt, in middle of the country. The conflicts as
a result of that incompatibility, absolutely, positively, will occur. We know that. We have
experienced it in other areas. I'm not going to go through what those might be. I would
underscore just a little bit the health and safety concern of Eagle Road. That's a two
lane country road out there and we did meet with ACHD and I realize it, obviously,
meets their criteria, but I would encourage you, if you would, just drive out there. I don't
know what standards they have or where those standards come from, but that is a two
lane country road and it's just not ready for 2,000 more people. In terms of the
transition, the -- it's been talked about already, so I'm not going to cover it much, but this
is very low density here, up to right here next to us, the rack 'em and stack 'em and so I
was just disappointed that the developer, who I met with on multiple occasions, just
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 43 of 80
trying to -- not to stop, but just to give me and my family the same consideration of the
density next to them that they did with the Blackrock folks. And, unfortunately, that was
turned away. So, to close up, September 16, 2006, the Mayor presented to us and the
local officials this wonderful plan and it's called Meridian, the Star of the Northwest.
Pretty good vision. Commissioners, Mr. Chairman, that -- can you pan back to the other
one, Justin? That is not even close to this. There is a solution. We are not trying to
stop this, we just want lesser density. There is plenty of profit to go around. And if it's
less dense, it will help us, the neighbors, make it more compatible for the surrounding
people. Appreciate your consideration. I'll stand for questions.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Any questions of this individual? Not at this time.
Thank you. Would the applicant like to come back -- oh. Is there anybody else that
would like to testify to this application before we move forward? Would the applicant
like to come back.
Brown: For the record, Kent Brown, 1500 East Iron Eagle. I'll start with Mr. Scott
Fulcher. We did contact Scott. The staff said that they would like to see that pathway
to go back out to Eagle Road, so we did approach him. We even provided a conceptual
drawing. I have a copy here that we can plop up to show how his property might
redevelop at some time in the future. We did even offer him some money for the
property to try to secure that and, then, knowing that we would have to submit another
preliminary plat for the four lots that would happen as a part of redeveloping his -- his
property. I think that that pretty much discusses what he talks about there. Providence
Development is a subsidiary or a child of Hubble Homes. They are part of the
development company, development arm for Hubble. Barbara talked about density and
our location. From the design standpoint of this, the thought process -- I mean I live
probably as close -- you know, as Scott lived in that house, I live closer than he
probably does to Eagle Road, just across from St. Luke's Meridian and I'm in a half
acre development and it's kind of the wrong location. You know, we are surrounded by
commercial development and other development and it's changed while we have lived
there. But long term, as Meridian Comprehensive Plan and what you have proposed
out there, and the adopted Comprehensive Plan for this area, the thought is is that this
is going to be higher density and that you transition inward. The thought process, as I
put the design together on this application, is that you have less lots here where,
basically, it stops. You don't have a means of going up and over the ridge, so you're
going to go in a certain distance and stop. We already had an existing development
that was approved on top. We transition with the larger lots, which keeps, again, as I
earlier spoke, people driving passed other people's homes. If we had more houses
here and less houses there, the transition just didn't make any sense. Realizing that in
this short area and you have all been commissioners and staff people of the planning
department here in the City of Meridian, you have seen those parcels come back before
you with higher densities and redevelopment and even commercial development along
major roads like Eagle Road. So, that's the thought process that I went through as we
did the design, is having less density internally, and we have, basically, R-4 homes
here, even though -- or the R-4 zoning, but the lot sizes of most of those are closer to
the R-2 zoning, 14,000 square feet. I think some of them maybe are 70 feet wide,
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 44 of 80
instead of 80 feet wide, that that zone would require. We have the micropath that is a
buffer in between us. We have 50 feet on our side of the ditch and as that property
redevelops between us and the Fulchers you will have a hundred feet for a buffer strip
that's between the two properties. Yes, we are all around Scott Fulcher's place and we
have made an effort to try to purchase his property and couldn't come to an agreement
on the price. My client stated that they have given him a fair market price and so that's
kind where it left and we made other provisions to meet your staffs requirements.
Moe: Kent, on the property there, I'm curious, are all those R-8 lots right in there?
Based upon your --
Brown: Yes.
Moe: -- your colored rendering here, it looks like it may be an R-4.
Brown: The lots are a little larger, but the zoning is R-8. Yes. And part of that is is that
those -- some of those lots are deeper in there, so that those people do have a little bit
more of a backyard than -- you know, speaking to what -- we all have different likes and
different -- my wife likes to mow a lot of lawn, so that's why we have a larger lot and we
choose to do that. But our lots -- you know, my lot on a half an acre is 180 feet deep.
The lots that we have in here are 140 and, you know, some are greater, like I think this
is close to 200 in the comer there. And, then, back up in here we have -- as we go
around that edge, some of those lots are a little larger as they fan out. Trying to meet
the road configuration in there. We really did try to make it so that that wasn't one of
those outparcels that couldn't redevelop in the future, understanding that the
transportation people don't want the Fulcher property, the Scott Fulcher property to not
exit out onto Eagle Road, they want to -- they are going to reduce the number of
conflicting points there and we did provide the -- what would be the Fulcher homestead
up here on the other side of Ten Mile, a stub location and we tried to put it in a place
where as that property redevelops. As I met with Russ, I said, you know, maybe we
could move it down, but we have to work with the roads that are internal and meeting
the offsets, you know, if they thought that there was a better location, if it needed to go a
little bit further south and more to the center of their site, but I tried to put it in a location
looking at their property line, so that as a road come in that there would be room to put
lots on the north side of that stub street that we would be proposing there. The
discussion about wells. This will be served with pressure irrigation The conditions
require a pressure irrigation. The comment about wells is your standard comment that
as a secondary source that they might be able to do that. At this point we don't have a
secondary source. We are talking to some other landowners about maybe a possibility
of a secondary source. The land's currently being farmed and the turf farm uses a well
to keep all of that green, which is probably more water than all those homeowners will
use, because they are greening the whole thing, versus the roads and the houses and
what's left. We are in the area of impact. We have been adopted. The plan for this
area takes you all the way to Columbia Road. We are well within the area of impact.
Yes, this -- anytime that the city extends out, the first one that goes out there is a little
different. If you go to the aerial. Amity Road, you have Messina Meadows that's in this
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 45 of 80
location. This property is under a developer's control. This is the White Bark property
that was approved with an R-4 zoning in that location. You have one landowner, Mr.
Ward, that is here. And the Meekers that -- did I say that right, Russ? What's -- Meek.
Nice couple that own this piece. And, then, you're familiar with these people from our
White Bark that have something there. Yes, we are the first urban development in this
mile section. There is some rural estate lots and I think that that's why when you looked
at the Comprehensive Plan, keeping those that are on top of the slope, they are going
to be that low density and there isn't much opportunity for change there. The property
across Eagle Road has been purchased by developers that -- the remainder of the sod
farm over there, anticipating sewer getting to the area. The original developer that did
the 44 lots on top of the ridge at the time when they were negotiating for that property.
That was all that they could do, but the way that the non-farm developments work in
Ada County is that you're allowed to do one house for every five acres that you have.
So, that's why they only did 45 on top of the ridge. That's why they didn't do like we are
doing and adding the extension of the cul-de-sac on that one portion, even though they
had area up there, they -- they only did the 44 that was there and, then, they had to set
the rest aside and the rest being set aside until sewer is available. Our clients have
extended sewer to the area as a part of an agreement with the city. They agreed that
when they were contiguous to the city limits that they would ask for annexation and they
are in compliance with the agreements that they have with the city. Do you have any
questions?
Rohm: The pressurized irrigation system, that is going to be off of surface water as its
primary source --
Brown: Correct.
Rohm: -- and the secondary source would be the deep well?
Brown: If we can get a well, yes.
Rohm: But the primary source would be surface water?
Brown: Yes.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Brown: The property has been supplied water by Boise-Kuna and we will continue to do
that and have a pressure irrigation. In fact, the facility was built with the non-farm and
we will just expand it.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 46 of 80
Siddoway: Mr. Brown, could you address your privacy fence, your fencing plan for the
subdivision, particularly the perimeter fencing plan.
Brown: We will have vinyl fence out there. Six foot. We will have four foot fence that
backs up to the Ten Mile and four foot fence for those lots that back up to the park and
anywhere that we have the pathway, we will have the six foot with the top two feet being
lattice.
Siddoway: And next to Mr. Russ Fulcher's property -- or Scott Fulcher's property?
Brown: Scott Fulcher's property would be a solid vinyl fence. Yes.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: Six foot with the --
Brown: Six foot. Yes.
Siddoway: One thing I'm curious about -- has ACHD required you to trust for any
portion of the cost of a bridge crossing Ten Mile?
Brown: I believe we would, but I can't remember that. It would be a total guess if I -- if I
gave you an answer. I could go look, but --
Siddoway: That's all I have right now.
Brown: That's a standard operation for that to happen.
Siddoway: Right. That's all I have right now.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe, do you have any questions?
Moe: Maybe I don't need to ask this, but I'm going to anyway. How is that? In regard
to the -- to the homes that abut the folks here, are you anticipating all those to be two
story homes that are out there or will there be some single stories or do you have any
idea at the present time?
Brown: At the present time I don't know that we do, but Don Hubble is here and he can
speak to that if you'd like.
Moe: I would like to get an indication of that.
Brown: Was there anything else for me or --
Moe: No, I'm fine.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 47 of 80
Brown: Mr. Borup?
Borup: My question was on houses, so I think he can answer that, too.
Brown: Okay.
Rohm: Okay.
Hubble: Good evening, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is
Don Hubble, president of Hubble Homes. And in regards to the style of home that will
be built along the Fulcher property, our business plan is to allow our property buyers the
opportunity select their floor plan. We offer both plans, single level and two story, and I
guess depending on the mix, we normally get 15 to 20 percent of our homes to be
single level and it could be more, but there will be a combination of both.
Moe: Okay. Thank you.
Borup: Mr. Hubble, the question I had was just on the -- there had been some talk on a
lot size, but do you know about what the house depth may be? I mean the plans you
submitted are 4,400 square feet, 3,500 square feet, and maybe down to 2,450, if I read
that right, but do you know what the depth may be on the average --
Hubble: I think our depths range from 40 to 52 feet, perhaps even 56.
Borup: Okay. I mean that -- I mean even an average of 50 feet, that leaves -- that
leaves at least 35 foot in the backyard, so 20 feet beyond the minimum setback it
sounds like. Thank you.
Rohm: I have a question for staff. Justin, did you say that this was approximately 50
percent low density development and the other 50 medium density, the R-8?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, correct. And that's approximate.
I didn't do the exact acreages, but as you can see on that Comprehensive Plan exhibit
that was shown earlier, about half that dark green, about half that yellow, and that's the
differentiation between -- dark green being low density and yellow being medium
density. And the range there on low density is up to three dwelling units per acre and
medium density is between three and eight dwelling units per acre. And as you can
see, this development comes in at about -- excluding the existing 44 homes previously
approved -- let's see here. The density comes in at 3.6 dwelling units per acre. And
including those homes, as Mr. Brown said, it's about three units per acre.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. I don't have anything else.
Borup: I have got a question for staff.
#t�* i f o-�C-
zs .
u +'
;
h
°
sF
Z
a
.�:�:'
i
Meridian Planning & Zoning
• i
February 15, 2007
Page 48 of 80
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I didn't -- in the past there has been a limitation on the number of homes built
until there is a secondary access. Was that addressed by -- I may have missed that in
the staff report, but --
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I can look
and see if there was a specific condition from the fire department in there. It looks like
Mr. Cole may be doing that right there. If not, it's because the fire department is
assuming that White Bark, the subdivision to the north, will go through, a long with this
subdivision, so that secondary access would be provided from Amity Road to the north.
Borup: Okay.
Lucas: And it looks like the fire department condition 3.9 does address that.
Borup: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if any of the staff here tonight will know this or
not, because this may be a building department question, but I'm wondering if you're
familiar with -- does the current UDC address the quality of building material, siding,
things like that, or is it left open?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, as far
as I know -- and Mr. Hood can correct me if I'm wrong -- currently the UDC, the unified
development code, which governs the planning department regulations and the
subdivision of land and numerous Public Works Department regulations, there are no
residential design standards which address -- which address siding, any type of
materials, or anything like that. If it's going to the International Building Code or the
building code from the building department, they may have some standards regarding
fire -- fire protection and things like that, but I'm not sure of their standards.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: Usually the exterior siding materials are -- they are standard -- standard
material, all come from the same source. It's pretty much the same on any house in the
valley. You know, they are all from a major -- major manufacturer, so --
Rohm: Any other questions for either the staff or applicant at this time? I think at this
time it's probably appropriate, then, to close the public hearings. Could I get a motion to
do so.
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
t
Meridian Planning & Zoning
• i
February 15, 2007
Page 48 of 80
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: I didn't -- in the past there has been a limitation on the number of homes built
until there is a secondary access. Was that addressed by -- I may have missed that in
the staff report, but --
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, I can look
and see if there was a specific condition from the fire department in there. It looks like
Mr. Cole may be doing that right there. If not, it's because the fire department is
assuming that White Bark, the subdivision to the north, will go through, a long with this
subdivision, so that secondary access would be provided from Amity Road to the north.
Borup: Okay.
Lucas: And it looks like the fire department condition 3.9 does address that.
Borup: Okay. Very good. Thank you.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I don't know if any of the staff here tonight will know this or
not, because this may be a building department question, but I'm wondering if you're
familiar with -- does the current UDC address the quality of building material, siding,
things like that, or is it left open?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway, as far
as I know -- and Mr. Hood can correct me if I'm wrong -- currently the UDC, the unified
development code, which governs the planning department regulations and the
subdivision of land and numerous Public Works Department regulations, there are no
residential design standards which address -- which address siding, any type of
materials, or anything like that. If it's going to the International Building Code or the
building code from the building department, they may have some standards regarding
fire -- fire protection and things like that, but I'm not sure of their standards.
Siddoway: Okay.
Borup: Usually the exterior siding materials are -- they are standard -- standard
material, all come from the same source. It's pretty much the same on any house in the
valley. You know, they are all from a major -- major manufacturer, so --
Rohm: Any other questions for either the staff or applicant at this time? I think at this
time it's probably appropriate, then, to close the public hearings. Could I get a motion to
do so.
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
is
5
64i, r } f e� } f 3 �:'e`3 w
IZ[.
3'^` .'h,
t`
lR
A
4
��1
Yy f
S
h
i
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 49 of 80
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on continued public
hearings from January 4th of AZ 06-058 and PP 06-059. All those in favor say aye.
Opposed same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Borup, would you like to make some final
comments?
Borup: I guess one of the things that has -- I mean a lot of influence to me is it does
follow the Comprehensive Plan and they even went to the extent of -- of -- it looks like
following the Comprehensive Plan map pretty close and, you know, we have been told
those are fuzzy lines usually and so they have made some effort to follow that and
adjust the lot sizes accordingly. I mean there are an awful lot of lots in here, but I -- the
minimum lot depth I saw in there was 105 feet, which is, again, above what we normally
see most of the time with 100 foot lot depths, it allows for a little larger backyards and --
though I can kind of sympathize with the Fulchers and what they are going through, they
were the ones that originally owned this property and that was the time they had control
to maybe have some influence and, you know, they chose to sell and pass that on to
someone else. I would be in favor of -- I mean of the project. I see nothing in the -- in
the Comprehensive Plan or in our other codes that would justify not.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: First a couple of comments on what I like the most. I really like the park
system and specifically that their -- these parks do have quite a bit of frontage to them.
Mrs. Fulcher mentioned a concern about, you know, hidden spaces and I share those
concerns with public open spaces and it's been somewhat of a crusade of mine to avoid
open spaces that are hidden and we have several examples of, you know, schools built
ten years ago or so that are completely wrapped by housing. What we have here is the
park fronted by the major collector of the subdivision. It also has continuous frontage
along here. I believe that if this plan had come before us even five years ago we would
have seen, you know, these parks wrapped with homes and wrapped with homes with
some smaller leftover areas in the middle and this doesn't -- this doesn't do that. This
does give quite a lot of visibility, in my opinion, to those park areas and I commend the
developer for laying those parks out that way. I don't -- I do find that the densities of the
proposed subdivision comply with what's been approved by City Council for the
Comprehensive Plan, so I have -- I don't really have any direct concerns about the
density. I have thoughts going through my head about the quality of construction, which
y
is why I asked my previous question. You know, I have seen houses on very small lots
half the size of my own that sell for twice as much as my houses is worth, so I know that
quality is somewhat independent of the size of the lots and -- and I don't know -- this
may be -- I'm wondering if -- the thoughts going through my head are could there be
some things added to the development agreement that would address some of the look
and feel of the homes, such as not allowing vinyl siding, things like that. Requiring
wood -- you know, wood or stucco, which appear to be what's in those elevations that
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 50 of 80
are submitted, but is there any -- I was just looking. Is there any legality issues with the
-- we can address quality, because this is an annexation; correct?
Baird: Mr. Chair and Members of the Commission, yes, your annexation is discretionary
and if you want to make that a condition of your annexation, it's been done before.
Siddoway: Yeah. And I don't know if there are specific thoughts about, you know,
what's intended here. We already closed the Public Hearing, but my thoughts are
stemming along the quality. I don't have a problem with Hubble Homes per se, I just
want to -- because I know that they have done many many upgrades. I just want to
make sure that we are getting, you know, quality.
Borup: It sounds to me like when you say quality you're talking more of design --
architectural design.
Siddoway: Yes. And materials.
Borup: Well, materials are pretty much materials. I mean if you have got, you know,
hard board siding, it's hard board siding. It doesn't matter whether the house is, you
know, 400,000 or a million. Most of the time probably have the same siding on it. Now,
if you're talking about maybe adding some more architectural details, then --
Siddoway: Yeah. Like the wainscoting along the --
Borup: Yeah. I don't know if that's necessarily quality, unless you consider, you know,
stone a higher quality than hard board siding.
Siddoway: Yeah. So -- that's my thoughts. I guess I'll leave it there for now.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Moe.
Borup: If I may, maybe just to kind of -- on top of what Commissioner Siddoway said,
has there been any CC&Rs submitted? I know we don't approve them and require it,
but oftentimes they do. That's where those type of things would be addressed.
Lucas: Commissioner Rohm, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Borup, no,
we haven't reviewed any CC&Rs or received any type of architectural guidelines or
anything from the applicant regarding these -- this application. Only the elevations that
were proposed.
Borup: Okay.
Lucas: And just to be clear, currently the development agreement doesn't address any
type of architectural elements, details, or elevations at all. I'm not -- the staff report
doesn't tie them to anything currently. Oftentimes when -- when an applicant submits
the elevations, it's for illustrative purposes and we leave it up to the Commission or
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 51 of 80
Council to -- if they so choose to specifically tie the developments of certain elevations,
certain materials, certain architectural elements.
Rohm: Thank you, Justin. Commissioner Moe.
Moe: Commissioner Rohm, I guess I would pretty much mirror exactly what --
Commissioner Borup in regards to the overall project as far as the Comprehensive Plan.
It does meet the intent of the Comp Plan and this body. Our main objective is to review
each project and its compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and it does that. I,
however, would -- as far as some of the layout, I would like to have seen it a little bit
different, but, again, on a whole it does meet the Comp Plan and amenity -wise and
whatnot I think it's a very nice project. I, too, I guess, would be interested to discuss it a
little bit more in regards to putting some conditions on the development agreement, if
you're so inclined.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to ask to reopen the Public Hearing and allow the
developer's representative to address that.
Rohm: Is that a motion?
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to reopen the Public Hearing so that additional
questions can be asked of the applicant.
Hubble: Mr. Chairman and Commissioners, we did bring some architectural drawings
here to show tonight and I can give you a little overview of what we are going to do.
Shall I take a few minutes to do that?
Siddoway: Thank you.
Hubble: First of all, you know, our business plan is to allow the buyers to select
whichever model they choose and, then, once they select that floor plan we give them a
multitude of options for the elevation and, then, what kind of features to put on that
exterior. So, just as an example here, the two series of floor plans that we will offer
would consist of eight floor plans in the Legend series and five floor plans in the
k ;
Signature series, so we'd have a total of 13 floor plans. Each floor plan has a total of
four different elevations, four different looks with the roof lines and the gables and the
porches and so forth. So, just within those options alone, that's a total of 52 different
combinations. And, then, if you can flip to the next slide. Then within those four
different elevations we have a ten percent brick option, we have a 30 percent brick
option. We have the hard board siding option and, then, the same thing with stone, ten
percent stone, 30 percent stone, and, then, a third car garage. So, the full array of
different options would be 312 different choices. So, the goal is to not have the same
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 52 of 80
home next door and provide a good streetscape. But also to allow the buyers to make
those choices.
Siddoway: So, is the hard board an upgrade? I
Hubble: Yes.
Siddoway: And that's the siding type?
Hubble: Yes.
Siddoway: Is the default vinyl? I ;
Hubble: Right.
Siddoway: Okay.
Hubble: Okay. So, then, the additional elevation and choices are we can change the
shutters, we can change the front door, change the garage door, change the window
grids and, then, add countless color options. The next slide, please. Okay. This is an
example -- we just brought the two plans, but this is a 3,500 square foot plan and this is
the Elevation A. So, this is the most basic elevation. Now, I do want to point out that in
other communities, like you mentioned, in Charter Point and so forth, we have already
added a number of architectural features here that are different than our base plans.
F
We did this when we approached City Council with our last community, Solitude
Subdivision, in north Meridian, and worked personally with a number of Council
members and the Mayor and came up with some compromise and tried to satisfy the
architectural requirements. So, this has the gable roof. It has an eyebrow roof over the
garage to give it an additional dimension there. We have the colonial grid window. Full
covered porch. Garage columns. They are kind of hard to see in this rendering, but
there is additional architectural relief on both sides of that garage in the form of a
column and, then, we have the flat shutters. So, that's one option. Here is the same
plan with a stucco elevation. So, this will be an upgraded cost, but it will have a two
tone stucco and the two front gables. Still the eyebrow roof over the garage. Colonial
grid windows as a standard, but they can select their option. Full covered porch, garage
columns, and board bat shutters. Elevation C, the next one. Now, here is a different
roof line. The hip roof with two gables coming out the front. We have got combination
siding, the gable roofs. Eyebrow roof over the garage. Perimeter grid windows. Full_
covered porch. And garage columns. And, then, Elevation D, is that same different roof
line, with a single gable front over the garage and has a combination stucco and shake
siding. The one gable with the hip roof. Eyebrow roof over the garage. The grid
windows. The covered porch. Garage columns. And traditional shutters. So, those
are the four standard elevations. And here they are again. You can see in the
comparison. So, the roof lines change. This one does not have a whole lot of change
in the porch. A lot of times the porches will change. And the window configurations.
And, then, let's see, we have got another one here on another floor plan. Okay. This is
s:
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 53 of 80
a different floor plan. Now, this series is going to be a wider home. The last series we
looked at the homes are -- standard widths are 40 feet. The third car garage makes
them 50 feet. This series the standard width is 50 feet. The third car garage will make
them 60 feet wide. So, here is the base Elevation A, two front gables. Still the eyebrow
roof over the garage. With grid windows. Covered porch. The columns. And the slat
shutters. These are probably, essentially, similar architectural details, but that's how it
looks on a larger home. And next elevation. Let's see. I guess that is the plan, so
that's how that particular home looks in Elevation C. And the next one is Elevation D.
So, those are your four different looks for that particular plan. And remember that the
home buyer has the option of the amount of brick or stone to put on the front and the
choice of sidings and colors. Let's see. Oh, one more --
Moe: Along with that point -- along with that point of the homeowner gets to make that
decision, do you, then, at least review what your -- what each one of their neighbors is
doing next to them to make sure that you're not duplicating the same house?
Absolutely. And our architectural control says that they can't
ross the street or next door. Now, they can select the sa
Hubble: And I think just the last -- the last slide here -- oh, just as an example, too.
These are alternatives for the rear architecture. When a home buyer selects a covered
patio these are some examples of how those will be built. So, there is the option that it
won't be just a plain back of the house, that there is some architectural relief on that.
And I think our last slide is a home that we just built over here in north Meridian as a
model, so it's kind of dark, but it's -- and this is a sales office, so the garage door will be
where those glass doors are. That's an example of what we were building.
I don't have any renderings.
I can sure get those, though.
be my -- okay.
Any more questions?
Borup: Mr. Hubble, maybe just -- would you have any estimate about what percentage
homes would have one of the upgrades, something additional to the very basic? You
know, either adding stucco or stone or --
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 54 of 80
Hubble: I don't have the statistics, but I think somewhere between -- I think roughly two-
thirds to three-fourths of our homes have got some kind of an upgraded elevation.
Borup: Okay. Thank you.
Siddoway: My current thought is -- I believe that those brick and stone accents add a
lot. And the hard board I think does, too. I would -- I would suggest, just for discussion,
that the ten percent brick or stone accents with hard board would become the base line
and, then, they could upgrade to the 30 percent or the third car garage and the other
options as well, but that was my current thought.
Rohm: I don't -- I can't think of a single subdivision that we have made that a
requirement to date, but that's certainly your prerogative to have that -- that thought
process, Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: In the interest of moving on, I move to close the Public Hearing.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing. All those in favor
say aye. Opposed same sign?
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Okay. I guess at this point in time it would be the prerogative of the individual
making the motion to modify or submit recommendation to include additional information
over and above what was in the staff report, but I'm certainly interested in hearing a
motion.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, I would recommend
approval to the City Council of file number AZ 06-058 and PP 06-059 as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of February 19, 2007, with no modifications.
Borup: Second.
Rohm: Okay. It's been moved and seconded to forward onto City Council
recommending approval of file number AZ 06-059 and PP 06-059, to include all staff
report with no modifications. All those in favor say aye. Opposed the same sign?
Siddoway: Aye.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 55 of 80
Rohm: It's been approved. There was one dissension.
MOTION CARRIED: THREE AYES. ONE NAY. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Thank you all and at this point we are going to take a ten minute break.
(Recess.)
Item 6: Public Hearing: CUP 07-001 Request for Conditional Use Permit for an
11,000 square foot multi -tenant retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone
for Jamaca Me Tan by Darren Blaser - North of East Fairview Ave and
West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision:
Rohm: All right. At this time we'd like to reconvene the regularly scheduled meeting of
the Meridian Planning and Zoning Commission. And before we open up this last Public
Hearing, I'd like to return to the start of the agenda and we continued Item No. CUP 07-
001 to the end of the meeting, because the applicant wasn't here and I have been
informed that the applicant has requested that we continue this to the next regularly
scheduled meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. So, with that being said,
I'd like to suggest that a motion be presented to continue this to the regularly scheduled
meeting of March 1st, 2007.
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to continue Item No. CUP 07-001 to the regularly
scheduled meeting of March 1st, 2007. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same
sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Item 15: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: RZ 06-011
Request for a Rezone of 1.0.57 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road:
Item 16: Continued Public Hearing from December 21, 2006: PP 06-060
Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family building lots, 3
common lots and 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for
Sundial Subdivision by Gemstar Development - south of Ustick Road
and west of Linder Road:
Rohm: Okay. That being said, I'd like to open the continued Public Hearing from
December 21st, 2006, of RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, both items are related to the
Sundial Subdivision and begin with our staff report.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 56 of 80
Lucas: Thank you, Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission. Just a brief
introduction before I go into the heart of the staff report. I don't know if everyone
remembers, but the last time this public hearing was opened there was a brief
discussion of how that day I found a document that related to this subdivision in the
basement of this building that kind of changed some things. And so that's why it was
continued. So, there really was no presentation given at that time and it gave staff and
the applicant time to review that development agreement that we ended up finding and
numerous changes have been made since then. A new staff report was issued and I
believe all interested parties have received copies of that new staff report and that's why
we are here tonight. So, I'll go on and just begin with a normal presentation. The main -
- one of the main things that was changed was the withdraw of the rezone application.
This application started out as a preliminary plat and a rezone and now is simply just a
preliminary plat due to one of the provisions in the development agreement. With that
said, the applicant Gemstar Development has applied for preliminary plat approval of 28
single family residential building lot, three common lots, and one other lot, which
contains a cell tower and it's basically described as phase two of this development, in
the existing R-4 zone. The site is located approximately a quarter mile south of Ustick
Road and a half mile east of Ten Mile Road adjacent to Turtle Creek Subdivision. Right
in here. This parcel. The one existing feature on the site of note is the 150 foot tall cell
tower that has been on this property for quite some time and from what I understand
from numerous public input and the applicant, it used to be a lot taller than 150 feet, but
a couple years ago it was dropped to 150 feet, and at that time it, basically, made a lot
of this property eligible for development, because, then, part of this land was out of the
fall zone of that cell tower and for a long time none of the land was out of the fall zone,
because it was so tall. Adjacent land uses and zoning. As you can see, it's -- this
property is almost completely surrounded by residential -- it completely surrounded by
residential development, most at an urban density. To the north there is single family
homes in the Tumble Creek Subdivision. To the east are single family homes in the
Turtle Creek Subdivision. To the south is also Turtle Creek. And to the west you have
Field Stone Meadows Subdivision. And there is also this lot right here, which was
subdivided of a part of Field Stone Meadows, but it's kind of a larger lot that was a
remainder lot from that subdivision. There is an existing home. It's about 2.1 acres, if
I'm correct. The overall project description, we can kind of move on to the aerial
photograph. This gives a good idea. That cell tower is kind of located right in the
middle. There is numerous guide -wire boxes and things located all around there also.
We can move on to the preliminary plat. As stated earlier, there are 28 residential lots
proposed, three common lots, which are located -- one common lot here, one common
lot up here, and, then, there will be a common lot for that micro pathway. And the other
lot is this circular lot, which will be a lot and block in the subdivision that contains the
existing cell tower. The applicant is proposing to construct various streets. The
Fieldstream Drive and Marburg drive are the two major streets. I'm probably going to
get this wrong. I believe Fieldstream comes up from the north -- is that correct? And
Marburg -- I mean Marburg extends to the north up through the site and Fieldstream
comes from the -- comes from the east. These -- also, as part of this development the
applicant is required to complete the construction of Kubik Street, which is only a
partially completed street section at this time. Also, there is going to be a completion of
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 57 of 80
this cul-de-sac and the creation of a T intersection to facilitate the redevelopment of this
parcel in the future. Other than that, ACHD did submit comments on this project and
they were included in the staff report. And that is -- the one also thing of note is that
after reviewing this -- this is 2.1 acres, actually. This is the Bledsoe property to the -- to
the west and staff has required -- and as shown on the preliminary plat, the applicant's
proposing a stub street to that property. The only issue that we saw with that stub street
that -- much like that presentation I had earlier, we are concerned always with double
fronted lots and as proposed this stub street, if it were extended kind of straight in and
turned up into a cul-de-sac or knuckled or something like that, it would create a double
front situation for this lot right here, this existing lot in the Fieldstone Meadows
Subdivision. So, what staff has proposed and required a condition in the staff report is
that this stub street be shifted a minimum of ten feet to the north, so the southern
portion of the stub street would be ten feet to the north of this rear property line, so we
would have that ten foot buffer, much like on the Deklan Subdivision, which was
discussed earlier. The applicant is proposing .53 acres or five percent of open space,
which is combined in those common lots and micro pathway that I discussed and that
micro pathway will act as a future connection, from what I understand, to a future open
space that will exist in this future phase of the development and that will serve that
when it develops out once the cell tower is removed. The Comprehensive Plan
designation for this property is medium density residential and the -- let's see. The
gross density proposed is 2.64 units per acre, which is a little bit misleading and, as
discussed, in the staff report, that the 2.64 units per acre takes into account that large
lot, but if this were to develop out at a normal density, the density would go up to about
3.5 units per acre -- per acre for the entire development. So, staff does view that as in
compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. There were -- there is no variances being
requested and staff views this as complying with the Unified Development Code. And
just -- I think it's appropriate to provide a brief -- a brief history of this property. I know
there may be some discussion of it tonight and so it's probably a good idea that we
know -- the Commission is completely aware and the public also of what's going on
here. In 1994 the subject property was annexed and zoned to R-4 as part of the Turtle
Creek Subdivision and at that time the property received preliminary plat approval for 40
lots as part of the Turtle Creek preliminary plat. These 40 lots were originally designed
to be phase four of the Turtle Creek Subdivision and as you can see it's pretty clear,
because there are some uncompleted cul-de-sacs and things like that as part of the
Turtle Creek Subdivision that just never were completed and there is various reasons
for that. Mainly it was that cell tower that was placed on the site and that received some
sort of prior approval through the county and by the time Turtle Creek got all the way out
there they realized they couldn't develop that spot and there are maybe other reasons
which staff is unaware of. And also as part of that -- so, basically, what happened was
that plat no longer applied, it's been so long and the developer is requesting changes to
that, so that's why they are requesting a new preliminary plat, but along with that there
was a development agreement that was entered into on this property that still is in in
effect and the development agreement clearly states that all the lots had to be 8,000
square feet and meet the dimensional standards of the R-4 zone and the frontage
requirements and things like that. So, that is why this plat is back before us revised as
an R-4 -- as an R-4 plat that meets all the dimensional standards of the R-4 zone.
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 58 of 80
Other than that, there is probably -- there may be questions, but staff has no further
analysis really. Staff is recommending approval of the proposed subdivision and I'll
stand for any questions.
Rohm: Justin, thank you very much. Any questions of staff?
Siddoway: I have none.
Rohm: At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Noriyuki: Thank you. Scott Noriyuki with Gemstar Properties, 738 South Bridgeway
Place, Eagle, Idaho. Gemstar is the developer of this project. Staff has done a good
job outlining all the statistics for the project. We are happy with all the conditions. I do
want to take a minute to go over a couple of the items briefly and, then, I will just stand
for questions. The cell tower itself, we put a lot of thought into that. We are putting out
a notice of termination with the lessees on that property and we anticipate actually
pulling that down in the future. We are still negotiating that, what the actual timeline is.
It isn't determined at this point. There are two primary setbacks that we have to work
with for that fall radius. One is the residential setback, which is 125 percent of the
height of the tower, approximately 185 feet to an actual structure or the 172 -- the actual
lot. Then, we have the two times the height for a public right of way, which is the road,
hence the nice curve that I put on there. Our open space is five percent, standing on its
own with the phase one, and when we go into phase two the density does go up, but
that open space for phrase two is actually approximately 14 percent, which we will put a
tot lot in there. In the interim the micro -path that will plug into the future phase, we will
be putting a four foot fence, it will be adequately lighted, so nobody can hide there.
There was some concerns from the fire department and the police department as far as
safety and fire hazard on the project. We have agreed to keep the project mowed, the
phase two portion of it, as well as the entire property until we develop it. We will keep
that mowed. We have got it under contract with a local company, as well as cleaning up
debris on the project. Furthermore, we have agreed -- I spoke with the fire department
and the police department today. We have agreed to inspect the fencing, make sure
that -- that surrounds the base of the cell tower and the guy wires, make sure that three
strands of barbed wire and the posting are up and adequate, in hopes that it's a good
deterrent, nobody tries to climb it. Additionally, as far as pressurized irrigation, we have
got a unique situation on this project. We actually have project shares within Settlers,
as well as Nampa -Meridian. Not enough in either one to satisfy our need, but during the
preliminary plat process and it appears the ultimate construction docs for Turtle Creek,
they did put in provisions -- there are three, possibly four, but three verified pressurized
irrigation stubs to our property. Turtle Creek and Tumble Creek pressurized irrigation is
actually owned and operated by Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District and I have spent
some time speaking with them as far as what our options would be. What they would
like to see and what they are proposing is that they take the two systems and connect
them through Sundial creating a loop, which sometimes helps pressure issues. Both
homeowners associations expressed a lot of concern for existing pressure.
Additionally, next week Nampa -Meridian will be meeting Settlers to facilitate the transfer
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 59 of 80
of the prospect shares we have there over to the Nampa -Meridian, so that we have the
adequate amounts we need there, as well as once the design has taken place we are
responsible for upgrading any distribution lines or pumps to insure we don't have
pressure issues, nor does Tumble Creek or Turtle Creek. With that I will stand for any
specific questions.
Rohm: I guess my first question is did you have a community meeting?
Noriyuki: We did. We did prior to our original hearing we had here that we continued.
There was a recommendation to have a second neighborhood meeting and we did have
that.
Rohm: And you have had that as well.
Noriyuki: Yes.
Siddoway: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Siddoway.
Siddoway: Two quick questions. First, the -- I'm trying to figure out the reason for the
irregular shape. Is that because that's where the guide -wires come down?
Noriyuki: That is correct. There is a large cement structure that's in place there, but the
desired depth that I wanted for those lots kind of dictated that. When we do the phase
two we will probably do a lot line adjustment on those to smooth them out. But we
wanted nice deep lots to this first phase.
Siddoway: Okay. And the tot lot you described, that's part of phase two?
Noriyuki: That is correct. And I apologize. If you would take a look at these. The third
page has a phase two conceptual on it. Mind you, that is the original plat that was
submitted, but it will give you a visual of what our intent is as far as the size of the park
and how we are correcting it.
Siddoway: Okay. That's all I have.
Noriyuki: Third page.
Rohm: Any other questions of this applicant? Okay. Thank you. Appreciate it. There
is quite a number of you out there. What I'd -- there is long list of people that have
signed up for this particular project and each and every one of you will be given an
opportunity to speak if you so desire. But, typically, what we do, we first ask if there is a
spokesman for a subdivision that is going to speak for a large body and if, in fact, there
is, then, that individual will be given additional length at the podium. If not, then, each
individual spokesperson will be given three minutes and the thing that we would ask is
kir
rix .r.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 60 of 80
that if, in fact, your specific testimony is a mirror of somebody else that has spoken, it's
fine to come up, but just at that time say that my issues have already been addressed.
So, the first thing that I'd like to do is see if there is a spokesman for a homeowners
association that would like to come forward and speak and, then, I'd also want to see a
show of hands for the individuals that that person would be speaking for. Are you a
spokesman for a larger group? Pardon? For Turtle Creek. And your name is -- okay.
Could I get a show of hands for those that James Hall will be speaking for? Okay.
That's a significant body of people. James, would you like to come forward, please.
And I want everyone to know that just because he's speaking for a larger body, if, in
fact, there is a specific issue that he doesn't address, it does not preclude anybody from
speaking, but we would appreciate you honoring the fact that he is speaking for a larger
body. With that you have got --
Hall: Thank you, Commissioners, Chairman Rohm. Thank you. Scott and Justin about
covered a lot of this. We have got some history with --
could you state your name and address.
Hall: James Hall. 2524 West Whitelaw Way, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. As Justin
described, the original was going to be a rezone to R-8, which was a lot of the concern.
Being that's been rescinded and we are staying with an R-4, that took a lot of the
concern out of it. We still have concerns about the tower, concerns about our HOA and
how this development will affect. As you know, the original developer had planned this
as phase four of our development and as you can see by the map, it finishes up North
Cinnamon -- the four lots on North Cinnamon, two lots either side of the West Whitelaw
Way cul-de-sac and, then, of course, the stub from Marburg and our main concerns are
we are real proactive HOA. We take a lot of pride in our community. We -- some would
say we are a little strong, but we take pride in our values and know what we have got. I
personally have lived here 33 years, so I have seen the city grow quickly and we'd like
to keep it nice. So, let me get on. I think probably the most important part is all of want
to see the cell tower gone. The original developer had an agreement with the lessee
and at that time we believe there was something -- the City Council denied it and we
believe there was an ordinance in place at that time that didn't allow it to move within
the City of Meridian and so it was denied. So, he laid in wait to finish his development
until the expiration of that lease, which we never gotten conclusive time frames. We
have been told it was seven years from '94, which, obviously, at this point we have well
expired that, so we don't exactly know where that's at. We are glad to see that Scott
and Gemstar are in the process of getting that removed. We have safety issues with it.
It presents liability issues for the developer, as well as safety issues for us and the
children that re in the neighborhood. So, we know that you don't oversee that, but we
want -- we would hope that as it goes on to City Council that that, hopefully, is
forwarded as the prime concern within the neighborhood, Tumble Creek and Turtle
Creek. Another is the irrigation issues and the pressure issues that lie in with that and
Scott, again, has addressed that. You know, as long as Nampa -Meridian is doing due
diligence to make sure that the issues -- that the irrigation waters are not overtaxed,
leaving us some pressure issues, because we are kind of in that -- at that breakpoint
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 61 of 80
s
now where certain times of the day, you know, as most people decide to water when
they home or whatever, we do have some pressure issues, so we just want to make
sure that that's not -- that doesn't become a worse situation. Again, our homeowners
association is -- our prime concern -- we want to make sure that -- that this development
brings in at least equal to or above what we have in place and also so that issues or
problems that they may have with their development don't spill into ours. And I think
that's the majority. We are doing everything we can to protect our values and,
obviously, as most people have spoke tonight for each of the hearings, that that's
paramount. So, I would say --
Moe: Can you speak to some of the problems you're concerned about?
Hall: Oh, we have had a lot of problems with recreational vehicle parking, parking of
non -running, non -licensed cars, to, you know, issues of fencing, a lot of that, and that
seems to be as we noticed, unfortunately, with some of the developments that are south
of us towards Cherry Lane, have fallen into disrepair and that's what we don't want to
happen to ours and everyone around us, too, for the betterment of the city. So, that
was one. And, then, any concerns that if -- we have worked with Scott. Scott's willing
to sit down with us and work with us on the CC&Rs and we have looked at two options
and that is either minoring our CC&Rs or possibly looking at a -- letting us adopt him
into our HOA, which will be ideal, and are preferable, but -- so --
Rohm: How did that discussion go, I'm kind of curious.
Hall: Actually, I don't -- I would say at first I don't think it was received well, but I think
now that the developer and I have had a previous discussion I think we are actually on a
lot more even ground than we originally thought. So, it's a matter of hammering out the
fine details and making sure that, you know, we are on the same plane and that we
want the same thing for our homeowners as we move along.
Rohm: Okay.
Hall: So, any questions?
Rohm: No. Thank you. That was -- if I could just encapsulate it, though, just for a
moment. The primary issues were the zoning, making sure that we stuck with the R-4
zone, as opposed to the R-8.
Hall: Stuck with the R-4. Correct. Yes.
Rohm: That was primary.
Hall: Yes. We believe that was rescinded --
Rohm: Well, the application for rezone has been withdrawn and so they are going to
stick with the --
•
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 62 of 80
Hall: The R-4 zoning.
Rohm: With the R-4. So, that was the primary issue.
Hall: That was the original primary issue, yes.
Rohm: Okay.
Borup: Mr. Chairman? I think you alluded to this. I wasn't sure what the answer was
when the Chairman asked and that was on incorporating this into your homeowners
association, so would that be your first choice?
Hall: That would be our first choice.
Borup: Okay.
Hall: Being that they are, basically, finishing what was our fourth phase.
Borup: I mean that was the original intention.
Hall: That was the original intention, yes. And, unfortunately, our developer was
stopped due to the fact that he was not able to --
Borup: So, is that discussion still going on to incorporate in, so that --
Hall: Yes, it is.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Rohm: Okay. Commissioner Siddoway?
Siddoway: Any position on the irrigation as far as the connection of the -- the two
systems and are you --
Hall: I think -- our thoughts for the Turtle Creek is just to make sure that we did not
have a pressure issue, overtaxing the system at that point. I know he's got -- as he
described to me, he's got three options now. At that time he only had two and one was
to stub off of Tumble Creek to the north. He had an option in the northwest comer at
possibly tapping into there and, then, I think -- and he may correct me, but with meeting
with Nampa -Meridian they found the stubs that actually let off of ours, which was,
obviously, originally set there for the fourth phase, so --
Siddoway: Okay.
Rohm: Okay. Thank you very much.
t
x
f
t
1
1
f t
a
i �Vh
1�
t
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 63 of 80
Hall: Thank you.
Siddoway: There is another spokesman.
Rohm: I believe there is a second spokesman. And would you like to come forward,
please, and before I have you start speaking, I need to see a show of hands for whom
this gentleman is speaking. It appears as if it's almost about to the -- and, please, state
your name and address for the record.
Johnson: Bill Johnson. 1940 West Lowry in the Tumble Creek Subdivision. And I live
on the comer of Rough Stone and Lowry, just to kind of give you guys an idea where I'm
at. A couple of our big concerns, first off, was alleviated when we found out the R-8
was rescinded. But the next one is traffic flow. Currently, Rough Stone is, as some of
my neighbors call it, the Meridian speedway, and everybody that comes off of Ustick to
come down into Turtle Creek or even to hit Chateau, and some of that area, comes
flying down through there. When Linder Road gets back up at Linder and Ustick, which
we all know it does, everyone cuts through our subdivision at about mach one. And
adding these extra homes -- I know the R-4 was there, we all expect that, I think one of
our big concerns is is there a way we can get traffic calming through our sub going
down into that, because if you look at the overall plot coming off of Ustick, they are
going to come down through Glennfield, hit Kubik into that subdivision, the new one, or
they are going to come off of Linder, hit Rough Stone via Tumble Creek and drop down,
causing some real concern for our kids that are out there in the streets and I know that
the citizens in Turtle Creek have the same concerns with some of the people coming
through their sub, so some sort of traffic calming or something to kind of help us all out
in that comer. I don't know if you guys have any pull with ACHD on getting the internal
speed limits reduced, but I've love to see them 20 miles an hour, instead of 25, so --
Siddoway: Can you point to which comer you're talking about?
Johnson: Yeah. Can we go back a little to the aerial? Right here where this Kubik ties
in, they'd hit Glennfield and Glennfield goes straight up to Ustick and I'm right here on
Lowry and people come down Tumble Creek currently, hit Rough Stone right here and
come -- come just flying down into that subdivision. I know my neighbors can speak to
the fact that when I'm out there, if I see people speed by us, I've tried to throw baseballs
at them and stuff, because it is an extreme safety concern. I have seen cars make this
turn onto Lowry on two wheels they have been coming so fast. So, adding those few
trips -- I know, what, 26 -- about 120 trips a day isn't all going to come through our
neighborhood, but that is a concern of most of my neighbors there on the Rough Stone
and also the people there in Kubik and Glennfield, it's going to add the traffic. Another
big one we had was the discussion on the irrigation. I'm glad to hear that they have
been talking to the Nampa -Meridian Irrigation District, because I do have pressure
problems during the summer, I have a silting problem with mine, and I know a lot of
other neighbors have and when the church went into the west of us, they had to
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 64 of 80
I]
upgrade the symptom a little bit. We are hoping that when they come -- when this sub
comes in that they have to also upgrade to make sure we don't lose our irrigation.
Rohm: When the church came on line did it improve the system somewhat?
Johnson: They put some stuff on, but it didn't really improve the system at all. And
Doyle back here is saying it's worse. He's, actually, lived in the subdivision longer than I
have, so he would have more history there, but I'm on a dead end and I know that mine
decreased my pressure, so -- with that -- I think that's everything for you guys; right? I'll
stand for any questions.
Siddoway: No questions. Just a comment. You know we don't -- we are not able to
control the traffic calming devices like speed bumps, things like that. ACHD controls
those. And it sounds like the main need for those is actually outside of the location of
this. You know, this could add some traffic that would use those same streets, but the
needed location for that traffic calming is probably off site from this particular proposal
and within the subdivision, do you agree?
Johnson: That could be some of it, but if there is some deterrent to making -- coming
from our subdivision down into that area where they have got an extra stop sign or two,
they might avoid that area and come in on some of the other more arterials. There is no
real good arterial that feeds this. If you look -- even coming in off of Turtle Creek it kind
of dead ends and, you know, they don't have a good collector for a subdivision --
residential collector in there.
Rohm: The comments that I would make to you on the traffic calming is the existing
road structure that's there right now, notwithstanding this future development, it appears
to me that it was designed specifically to calm traffic, because there is not -- there is not
quarter mile runs that don't have intersections and -- and I'm not saying that that's the
way it's turned out, I'm just saying that as subdivisions are designed, they have
intersections every 300 feet or something like that, to specifically calm traffic and it
sounds like you've just met some Parnell! Jones want-a-be's in your neighborhood.
Johnson: Actually, if you take a look a Rough Stone, it kind of makes that general bend
there and, then, it is at least a quarter mile straight shot, there is no stop signs on that
intersection. We actually petitioned ACHD to get some stop signs put in our
subdivision, we got one at Tumble Creek and Rough Stone on the Tumble Creek side,
so the people didn't run into --
Rohm: The way it was moving traffic, uh?
Johnson: Yeah. But at my comer they said it wasn't busy enough to warrant a stop
sign. I'm a block away from that other one. So, we have tried -- that Rough Stone is a
straight shot that's probably close to a quarter mile in length.
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 65 of 80
Rohm: It does have the intersections, though, and, theoretically, that's supposed to
calm traffic somewhat, but from what you're saying it doesn't sound like it's happening.
Johnson: It doesn't work. And we have even got the little drainage --
Rohm: The dips in the road.
Johnson: -- and that just gives them a good launching point.
Rohm: Wow, it sounds like you need a police officer to patrol your street.
Johnson: Thank you for putting that on the record.
Rohm: Yeah. Okay.
Baird: Mr. Chair? As long as we are putting traffic calming on the record, I think we
should -- we should mention that throwing softballs is not an approved calming -- traffic
calming measure.
Johnson: I agree. It isn't an actual throw, but, you know, I'm out there -- I have even
yelled at drivers and got the finger back, so --
Rohm: You're number one?
Johnson: Yes.
Rohm: Yeah. Okay.
Johnson: So, you know, it is bad and I can't even say where they are -- you know, they
are coming out of Turtle Creek or heading into Turtle Creek, but I can't tell if they are
passing through or not, because that seems to be a good access way from Ustick down
farther south.
Rohm: You might try and capture a license plate number and maybe they can get a
visit from a --
Johnson: We tried that, but, you know, if there is something that -- you know,
recommendations that you start seeing some of these other stubs, in -filling in and stuff,
you know, that would be real helpful to the other --
Moe: You said you had petitioned ACHD in regards to stop signs. What about any type
of speed bumps and whatnot through there, especially on Rough Stone?
Johnson: I don't know if they -- I don't know if they would specifically want the speed
bumps. Personally, I'm not a big fan of speed bumps for my profession. It tends to tear
up fire trucks, so -- but, you know, traffic islands and stuff like that tend to help a little bit.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 66 of 80
Rohm: Thank you, sir. Appreciate your testimony. Okay. I think, basically, the traffic --
speed of traffic throughout the subdivision and the zoning are the primary issues and,
then, secondary to that or maybe a third issue would be the irrigation. And so we have
heard all three of those and so I guess with that being said I'm going to go down through
the list of individuals and if you have some additional testimony to -- we want to hear it.
And so I will start by just -- I'm going to read every name on the list one at a time and
they can choose to speak or not. Ron Whiting.
Whiting: Yes. I'm Ron Whiting. I live at 3197 North Bluesprings, which is in the Tumble
Creek Subdivision. And I agree with what the gentleman just said regarding our
subdivision. I have a little experience in the past regarding traffic calming where I used
to live. I don't say which state, because I don't want to say California, but I don't really
think that speed bumps are a good thing. First of all, people with bad backs or other
parts of their body don't particularly like to go over those speed bumps, it's hard on their
system when they are already -- when it's already damaged and also the emergency
services people don't really care for the speed bumps. It's not good for their -- their
efforts to get to destinations speedily either. And other than that, the only thing I can
think of is that I thought that the developer mentioned the phase two; is that right?
Rohm: Yes.
Whiting: Okay. Which I haven't seen yet, so I don't know if it's appropriate to take a
look at that.
Rohm: We are going to get past phase one first.
Whiting: Okay. Okay. The traffic counts, then, regarding the vehicle trips per day on
the various residential streets out to the arterials?
Rohm: Pardon?
Whiting: Is there a traffic -- existing traffic count on the vehicle trips per day --
�x
Rohm: The applicant will --
Whiting: Pardon me?
Rohm: The applicant will have to address that, whether or not there is or not, but --
Whiting: Yeah. I'd like to see what the traffic counts would be -- anticipated traffic
counts in the residential streets up to the arterials and that's all I have to say.
j
Rohm: Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Any questions of this individual?
4<
a,
3
f
4f+
<fi
IV
ri
SLa:
r,
3
r
t
t
a.yy N
"�5`�.y,-.
'.•i1h4 #'R. -J..,§ .i 4�* S�k �iy �"Y � + 2,; : %�k, i
n
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 67 of 80
Siddoway: No questions. I'd just like to make it clear that we will neither require nor
deny speed lumps. That's not in our purview, so --
Whiting: But at least you know how I feel.
Siddoway Yeah.
Rohm: Okay. Paul Dye. Lucille Fretwell. They are waiving off their opportunity to
speak. Shawn Josi.
Josi: My name is Shawn Josi. I live at 2565 North Marburg Avenue here in Meridian. If
you can put the map back up. Right here, these lots here at the end, the previous
developer was forced by the city to put the utilities in. Okay. So, I know that the city
does have control over the development of what does take place, even though that was
not his property, he was mandated by the city to put the utilities in. So, the utilities exist
over here, they exist over in here, and they exist in here right now. And they were
mandated by the city. And as you can see by the plot plan, these homes right here are
going to face Turtle Creek Subdivision right here and right here. They will be facing our
subdivision. And I know that you guys have talked about that you don't any control
over, you know, as far as the CC&Rs and those type of things. The only thing I'd like to
point out tonight is, yes, the developer has on the tenth hour contacted our homeowners
association, in the tenth hour, and decided that he wanted to talk about -- but we still do
not have anything definite on if he's going to be agreeable with the architectural or the
bylaws of our subdivision or Tumble Creek has. And we know, as a homeowners
association, at 28 homes there will not be a homeowners association. There will be
nothing controlling those homes once they are put in. And so that's what our concern is.
We are not against the developer, our concerns are keeping things consistent between
the two -- between Tumble Creek and Turtle Creek and that's what our concern is.
Thank you.
Rohm: Thank you very much. Elaine Josi.
E.Josi: Elaine Josi. 2565 North Marburg. We stated some of our concerns that we
have, but just to clarify, the tower is a huge issue. It was a huge issue for our developer
and that's one reason why he never has gotten to the fourth phase, he was waiting for
that to be taken care of. The woman that owned that property wouldn't allow him at that
point to purchase it and, as was stated before, there was an ordinance at the time when
he had AT&T who was willing to move it to Ustick and Ten Mile, where they have -- if
you're familiar with that area, they have some storage units and some other things,
would have been an appropriate place in 1994 to place that. He was unable to do that,
otherwise, he would have completed that fourth phase. I have actually spoken with him
since Sundial has presented that and virtually that's what he was waiting for. I have
also spoken with other developers and their concerns are with all the developing that's
going on in Meridian there is a concern of anybody even wanting to buy something that
has a tower like this where they are going to put a home there and have that ugly thing
where people look at it. Gratefully, we now know -- the lady that owned it, unfortunately,
Ll
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 68 of 80
either died within this last year or her health went bad. It ended up going to a trust.
Kids didn't even know the property existed at the time. They had no clue that their --
that this was here, because we have had to work with them as the homeowners
association previously because of prior issues, because there are a lot of problems with
that and we had to work with them on that. But that tower is a huge concern and I'm
sure it is for this developer as well, but for him to be able to sell those homes, that tower
has to be dealt with, so that he can get his money and he can get people in there who
are willing to do that with this land and as long as that tower exists that's going to be
probably a little bit harder sell, which is a concern for us. And as stated by my husband,
there is a concern with -- with the CC&Rs. We know you can have the best CC&Rs in
the world, but if there is nobody there to enforce them, they are not worth the paper that
they are written on, and they are in between two subdivisions that do have functioning
and full and active boards that are keeping their subdivision in line and appropriate. So,
in addition to the water -- I mean to Turtle Creek definitely, CC&Rs are a huge issue and
we are grateful that finally this developer is wanting to talk to us, because we have
wanted to talk to him since we meet with him in October in regards to this and realized
that he had other concerns at that time and hope that he will follow through, because
when all is said and done, he will -- he will move on and we will be left with whatever is
there. And it's important that what's left there keeps the integrity of Tumble Creek and
Turtle Creek intact and the only way that we feel that that can happen is if Turtle Creek
or Tumble Creek have a say in those CC&Rs, so --
Rohm: Thank you. Anita Long.
Borup: Mr. Chairman, could we maybe encourage the future people to state to things
that pertain to this application, not take their off-site or if they don't have anything to do
with -- with this subdivision.
Rohm: Yeah. I think, basically, the -- the future development of, quote, unquote, phase
two of this development, which would include re -platting of the cell tower lot itself, is not
germane to this application at all and --
Borup: Same thing with the speed bumps and all that that's outside what we are even
looking at here.
Rohm: Right. Yeah. Basically it's the -- it's the issues that we have talked about, the --
the R-4 designation, the irrigation, and the — and the items within the subdivision itself.
And, Commissioner Borup, thank you for your input there. With that being said, Anita
Long? She's gone home? Deborah Long? Gone home also. Allen -- oh, he defers.
Michael -- from the field he says he didn't have anything more to add. Meredith Ishman.
Ishman: Meredith Ishman. 2328 West Whitelaw Drive, Meridian, Idaho. 83646. And I
just -- I just have a question, I guess, for -- for the commissioners. I'm just looking at
previous subdivisions that have been presented tonight and I'm just -- just wanting -- like
has been said before, this is an in -fill into an area that's already been developed and, as
has been stated, that it had been originally thought of as Turtle Creek Four. My
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 69 of 80
question -- or my -- my thinking is -- I'm just looking at what is proposed here and most
of the subdivisions that I have seen tonight -- usually there has been continuity within it.
When you say this is Sundial Subdivision, there is -- you come in and the homes that
are part of this subdivision are somehow connected. I just -- I just have questions
regarding those and I don't -- and I don't have any answers, because, of course, it
would have to be re -platted, but the question I had is you do see those -- the areas that
are the four areas around the Cinnamon, which I believe in here. These areas. These
homes here -- and, then, eventually -- and I realize you said not to bring up -- but I'm
just saying in -- this is also, though -- eventually will be, but it's -- what I'm trying to get
at is that all of these homes in here, these around here, they are not connected to -- I
mean you don't get to them except through Turtle Creek. You can't get to them from
Sundial. There is a small area -- a walkaway right in here, but, otherwise, most of the
area right in here -- you can't get to. I mean this is Sundial in here, but these homes,
even though they are part of it, they are not. I don't know if I'm --
Rohm: I'd like to respond to that --
Borup: What was your question, though? I don't think she has asked a question.
Ishman: What I -- the way that it's platted, that -- seeing the other subdivisions, they are
all connected, but these aren't and I'm just -- is there -- why they weren't somehow
connected where they would all be -- I don't -- I know I may not -- I may not be -- if
you're following what I'm saying, but they are -- they touch on the back lines, but they
don't connect.
Rohm: Let me respond to that if I could, please.
Ishman: Okay. That's fine.
Rohm: All subdivisions that come before this Commission and ultimately end up before
City Council have to have that interconnectivity and these lots here, even though they
may ultimately face inward towards your subdivision, there is still that interconnectivity
between this subdivision and the adjacent development and that's as it is with every
subdivision that comes before this body is they have to -- they have to work with
adjacent properties and, quite honestly, that's the -- that's the equivalent of the lots that
were proposed when it was part of phase four. I mean those lots on the end of that cul-
de-sac. And to redevelop it now to have them face a different direction would have
probably been more -- I don't know, probably wouldn't have been as easily received --
Ishman: Cost effective.
Rohm: -- as it is right here. But the answer is that all subdivisions have to have that
interconnectivity.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 70 of 80
Ishman: Interconnect. Okay. As long as they are just -- there is a way to get through
all -- it just -- I was just concerned with the fact that there was -- I mean being part of
Sundial, it did have that direct connectivity, if you want to say.
Rohm: And that -- well, the answer is that interconnectivity between subdivisions is
what we are desiring with each development that comes before the Commission and,
then, ultimately forwarded onto City Council. Thank you for your comments. Michael
McCarty. From the audience he says he has nothing to add. Doyle Christensen.
Christensen: My name is Doyle H. Christensen. I live at 2903 North Rough Stone. My
issue is we have had problems with our water in that Tumble Creek Subdivision from
day one. And the church has gone to it and as of yesterday Scott hadn't called
Nampa -Meridian water department. So, I don't know when he called, but it must not
have been -- it would have been today. I just want it for the record, if you would, please.
Something's got to be done about the water system.
Rohm: Thank you.
Christensen: Thank you.
Rohm: Katherine Dowell. From the audience she said she has nothing further to add.
Gerald Dowell. And from the audience Mr. Dowell defers. James Hall. Oh, he has
spoken. Dr. Tolthy. Okay. Kevin Sorensen. From the audience he said he had
nothing additional to add. Bill Johnson. He spoke. Kira Stigle. She doesn't have
anything else to add. Scott Looney. Amber Looney. Raymond Amaro. Has nothing to
add. Chuck -- nothing to add from Chuck either. Jim Bryan. Sandy -- Sadie. Her
concerns have been addressed. Matthew Friend. He defers. Ronna Masgrow. Okay.
Bradley Lloyd. And Ken Kinsel. Okay. That's all that have signed, but if there is
anybody else that would like to testify, now is the time. You're welcome to come
forward, sir.
Herr: My name is Ronald Herr. I reside at 2721 North Cinnamon Place in Turtle Creek.
Lot 1 of Unit No. 3. A couple of things I wish to speak to first. I would speak to the fact
that I did take the initiative and arranged a personal meeting with the developer Scott
and we had that meeting this last week and we resolved -- we are in the process of
trying to resolve the issues that are -- pertain to Lot 15 of his development and Lot 1
where we existing -- reside. He has committed to me that he will have a written
summary of our discussions tomorrow and we can see if we can get them prevailed.
What I would like to do here is reserve the right, in case we are not able to resolve our
issues, to reserve the right to submit the issues on to the City Council for their hearing.
The action will be here. Taken already here. I take one exception, Mr. Chairman. I'm
sorry, but part or the development is to fulfill the improvement of Kubik at Fieldstream,
having to live right on -- adjacent to that intersection and there are some traffic issues
there, but I also will be making contact with ACHD and trying to bring those forth to
them. And, agreed, the homeowners association is fragmented, but I understand your
situation. A new issue that I think -- and I don't know if it's your purview -- is dust
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 71 of 80
control. When the actual work commences, you have already stated that it's totally
surrounded by development at this point in time and I don't know whether you can
impose any stricter dust control issues than what DEQ requires, but I think that could
well be an issue when development does start, having spent some 30 plus years in
lending and development and so forth, working with contractors and et cetera. So, I
would raise that issue, that it could be addressed in your recommendations. I would --
and to be very stringent, I would appreciate that.
Rohm: I believe that there is, actually, ordinances on the books already that address
dust and debris and the like and maybe Commissioner Borup is more familiar just from
-- I believe that there are ordinances on the --
Herr: Right. But if they could be emphasized in your action, that would be -- due to the
situation that it's completely surrounded by existing residential development and
airborne dust particles and so forth, that would be appreciated.
Rohm: Thank you for your comment.
Herr: Thank you.
Borup: Maybe just one question.
Rohm: Sir, he has one question for you.
Borup: You had mentioned some -- working out some problems on Lot 15 and if that
doesn't happen -- I mean you can always bring anything up to City Council.
Hen-: Right. I just wanted to --
Borup: But I didn't know if that's anything that's pertinent for us to know about tonight
or --
Herr: I think we have it knocked out verbally and won't take your time and so forth. I
just wanted to put it on the record that we are working on it.
Borup: All right. Thank you.
Herr: And try to reduce to writing and we will go from there and --
Borup: Thank you.
Herr: -- I have had a very good communication with Scott and he, actually, came to my
residence and we sat down and talked about it. So, I gave him a kudo for that.
Rohm: Thank you very much.
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 72 of 80
Herr: You're welcome.
Rohm: Okay. There was one more lady that would like to speak, so come on up.
Please state your name and address for the record.
Fretwell: I'm Lucille Fretwell, 2886 North Glennfield Way.
Rohm: Thank you.
Fretwell: And I'm just a little curious how long this project will take where we will have
trucks -- gravel trucks and construction stuff going through our neighborhoods.
Rohm: That's a good question and I'm sure the applicant can respond to -- at least the
infrastructure side of it. I don't know that he would be able to address how long it will
take for all the houses to get built, but --
Fretwell: The heavy equipment and --
Rohm: But the infrastructure, I'm sure he can respond to that. Thank you. Is there
anyone else that would like to testify? Sir, come forward, please.
Coe: Jeff Coe. 2214 West Lowry, Meridian. That's in Tumble Creek. I have never
been to one of these before. It's been enlightening. I think the wheels of progress are
going to grind down all of the people who are concerned here tonight. I think that
subdivision is going to happen. You have put off people that want to know about phase
two, but if phase one doesn't happen, phase two will never happen. I think that this plot
of land here is the abandoned child from the original development of Turtle Creek
Subdivision. Somebody earlier mentioned that because it is such a small development
in here it will never ever have its own homeowners association. The people that live in
that small place will be on their own pretty much and I live in a subdivision that I chose
to live in, because of the strong homeowners association. The people in Turtle Creek
did the same. And I think for you -- for you people to ignore the two subdivisions -- the
two large groups of people that are still here at 11:15 in the evening and just stamp
approval on this I think is wrong.
Rohm: And I don't think anybody has ignored anybody. I think we have given --
Coe: I just -- you know, this developer is in here to build 28 homes and he will probably
disappear and, then, somebody else is going to come in and do the phase two some
day. Already this area is not built to handle the irrigation problems, it's not built to
handle traffic problems, and I just think this is -- I don't know that it's written anywhere
that this has to be developed as a residential area. Let's make it a park. Let's make it
something other than an in -fill when the two subdivisions that are there now don't want it
there. Turtle Creek -- if Turtle Creek had been developed originally without that tower
problem, Turtle Creek would some control over those -- that development there, but
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 73 of 80
they will have no control over it. Tumble Creek will have no control. And I just see it as
a very bad thing for both communities.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. At this time would the applicant like to come forward, please.
Noriyuki: First of all, I'd like to thank everybody for being here at 11:00 o'clock at night.
I think I can go through most of the issues and, hopefully, I can provide a little more
perspective. Not applicable to the phase one, but the tower lease is -- the formal
termination is going out, we expect it to be a five year term before we can pull it down.
We have no aspirations to relocate them. We are going to terminate it, we are not going
to buy property for them and erect another one. That will be their business and that is
our timeline for that. Moving into the CC&Rs and the HOA, we will retain that lot and
block under Gemstar Properties' ownership. The integrity of this subdivision is equally
important to me, because five years from now I want to have a viable place to finish it
out, that I can sell the remaining lots. Furthermore, moving into the tower and the
safety, we spent a lot of time working with the fire department and the police department
to do whatever we can to mitigate that. I realize it's important for the community,
equally important for me from a liability standpoint. I want to keep people off that tower
and out of that lot until we pull that down. As far as the irrigation, I do want to be clear
that we -- Gemstar Properties, me personally, has not had the tremendous amount of
verbiage with the irrigation district. My engineers, Stanley Consultants, they front run
that. They know what they are doing, they are the ones who design it. I interact with
them and I'll make some final phone calls, so that I can speak to you intelligently, but by
no stretch of the imagine do I -- do I design this. Furthermore, Nampa -Meridian
Irrigation District and Settlers Irrigation District are well aware of this project and we
received comments from them back in December. So, this isn't something that
happened at the last hour, we have been working on this. As far as traffic, ACHD has
not indicated any kind of a requirement for a traffic study. They haven't seen this as any
kind of an impact and they have approved it as submitted. I guess that's my comment
on that. As far as dust and fencing during the construction process, we are well aware
that this is going to be a difficult infrastructure to put together without upsetting
neighbors. We intend to -- whatever perimeter fencing isn't in and existing right now, we
are going to immediately put up construction fencing, temporary, during the
development, which is typically not required, it's only required to have perimeter fencing
up for issuance of building permits. We are going to step up to the plate and see if we
can't satisfy some of these folks to a higher level. Additionally, we do have EPA-
SWPPP requirements for dust emissions for our tracking of dirt off of the project. Those
are compliance issues that we have to meet and we intend on meeting them. I will be
fined otherwise. So, I think there is some really good provisions put in place there to
protect the homeowners and also we want to be a good neighbor. Moving into the HOA
and the CC&Rs. A little bit of an arbitrary thing, because I don't know that you're
necessarily a governing body over CC&Rs and HOAs. We do quite a bit of
development in this valley. Our intention is to set up a quality project. We will hire a
property management firm that will ultimately take care of the day-to-day -- make sure
that we have lawns mowed, things repaired as necessary. And we will fund these. And
there are requirements for adequate funding coming from Nampa -Meridian Irrigation
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 74 of 80
District, we will have to fund into the irrigation system for emergency repairs on the 4th
of July '09. So, this will be functioning. It won't be large. But this could be a very good
functioning association. That's not to say we are not willing to talk to Turtle Creek and
HOA -- Turtle Creek and Tumble Creek, HOA. There could be some really good
advantages for me. I have submitted a draft copy to both HOAs, as far as my CC&Rs
for them to review. I have also reviewed theirs and, quite frankly, I have some concern
with theirs. They are older. You know, it's a process as we develop and become more
state of the art, the type of CC&Rs -- or the expectation that I, the developer, want to
place on the project, so that I can insure I have a higher level construction, so, yes, I
can sell the lot. So, that's not to say we won't do it. We have some talking to do and I
think we can do that and if it's mutually beneficial, absolutely. And with that I'll stand for
questions.
Rohm: I have a couple of questions about the irrigation. And the thing that I have
heard over and over is the existing irrigation is suspect at best and so what my question
of you, sir, is -- is it necessary that all three systems ultimately be tied together or would
it be beneficial for you to maintain a separate line from Nampa -Meridian and not further
degrade theirs or could you comment on that for me.
Noriyuki: We do have some additional opportunities. Predominately, what is it, 8.44 of
my project shares, which is well over three-quarters of my project shares, is actually in
Settlers and on the northwest corner right there there is a gravity irrigation point source
that in the event that I cannot make something work with Nampa -Meridian, I can
develop my own pressurized irrigation system for the benefit solely for Sundial. So, we
do have another route. Nampa -Meridian naturally sees an opportunity with us to create
a loop system, kind of like a municipal water system. When you loop it you typically get
better pressure. Additionally, they have got somebody coming to the table with
additional water and money to up-size pumps and make repairs. So, ideally, they kind
of get their cake and eat it, too. If it doesn't work we have another opportunity. But until
the engineering is done and until the irrigation districts comment, because it is a unique
situation, quite frankly, we don't know right now.
Rohm: Okay. All right.
Moe: Have there been discussions with Settlers in regards to you doing your own?
Noriyuki: There has. Yes.
Rohm: Well, I guess just to encapsulate the whole thing, as far as irrigation, this body --
I would -- I think I can speak for the group as a whole, but we are not the least bit
interested in further degrading the existing irrigation to either of your neighbors --
Noriyuki: Absolutely. Nor do I want an insufficient PI system for my own project that's
going to be an issue.
Rohm: I believe that wholeheartedly. Thank you. Commissioner Siddoway.
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 75 of 80
Siddoway: Follow-up question to staff. Does Meridian Public Works review pressurized
irrigation system design or is that left to the irrigation districts?
Cole: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, Commissioner Siddoway. If it's
going to be a private system owned and maintained by the HOA, we will do a review of
the HOA pressurized irrigation system to insure that it meets the standards of Nampa -
Meridian Irrigation District. We don't own and operate it, but we review it to make sure it
meets Nampa -Meridian standards. I might just say that his comments of looping a
system, while not doing a detailed review of this PI system, obviously, that -- when you
loop a system you get better flows, you get better volume, you get better pressure. He
mentioned also of moving shares from Settlers and to Nampa, which is done often on
these developments where they span -- where they have irrigation rights in two
separate districts. If you can't get that done to get more water into the system and
upgrade the pumps to loop the system through, just generally, engineeringly speaking,
that will improve the performance of the system. Definitely volume and pressure, in
general terms. I mean I'm not doing a detailed review of this, but what he's saying is --
makes engineering sense. You loop a system, put more water into it, you upgrade the
pumps, it's going to -- it's going to get a better system, just the looping, even if you didn't
upgrade the pumps, the looping of it creates better hydraulic flow of that water. Thank
you.
Rohm: Just like you do with city water.
Cole: Absolutely. We are always pushing for more and more points in a -- to increase
fire flow, essentially.
Rohm: Thank you. Commissioner Borup.
Borup: Yes. Scott, one of the -- one of the main things I heard from a lot of the public
testimony concern was that, again -- and you mentioned that -- that CC&Rs and the
homeowners association -- I realize that this body and the city does not -- does not
approve those or require it, but you had mentioned it in your letter, so I think that kind of
opens that up.
Noriyuki: Sure.
Borup: But you had talked about wanting some amendments to the existing subdivision
CC&Rs -- you had some concerns that there needs to be updating and some stricter
standards; is that what you're referring to?
Noriyuki: I'll try and encapsulate it. By default it looks like if we were to annex we would
fit best with Turtle Creek. It makes obvious sense. After reviewing their CC&Rs, there
are several items that I'm not comfortable with. I don't feel that they are up to par as far
as our expectations in the CC&Rs we currently use on our subdivisions throughout the
valley. Not to say that they are bad CC&Rs and it is typically the people behind the
0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 76 of 80
CC&Rs more than what's on the paper, but as a baseline I would want some changes
made. Examples. Predominately, no vinyl siding. I would want to require that there be
a four foot wainscot, whether it be of stucco or a brick or a cultured stone. I would also
put some requirements as far as warranty on roof shingles and shingle types. Just a
few. Also, a lot of nuisance type items, aggressive dogs need to be on a leash where
they can be moved. A cap on how many dogs and/or cats that the homeowner could
have. Parking restrictions on the roads. We work hard to do a good development and
they have a very good clean development, but I guess my feeling is it has to be a
mutual beneficial agreement between them and us.
Borup: Okay. I understand that. That makes -- and as you stated, you will be hiring a
management company to --
Noriyuki: Correct.
Borup: -- review and oversee the subdivision anyway, so --
Noriyuki: Correct.
Borup: -- even if the homeowners in there are not actively involved, the management
company is going to be involved.
Noriyuki: That is correct. That is correct.
Borup: Thank you.
Siddoway: A question -- my question is for legal counsel that's on the same topic.
While we don't approve CC&Rs, we could require in this case that they have an HOA
and there is probably no problem with that to --
Noriyuki: I would concede.
Baird: Mr. Chair, I don't have to answer that question if he's conceding.
Noriyuki: Yeah. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Siddoway: Nothing further.
Rohm: Okay. Good. Commissioner Moe, do you have any questions?
Moe: No, I sure don't.
Rohm: Thank you, sir. We are done.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
• 0
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 77 of 80
Baird: Mr. Chair --
Siddoway: Timing of the infrastructure.
Noriyuki: How quickly will you get me through the city? Sorry. That's a late night joke.
Obviously, I need to go -- we are at the preliminary plat stage. I am projecting a
potential late summer start. That is, obviously, dependent on coming through City
Council and, then, upon City Council we have to develop construction drawings.
Borup: I think maybe the question would be how long of a construction time when you
started.
Noriyuki: Five months. Five months. If I couldn't finish it in a summer as far as getting
asphalt down, I would not start in the fall.
Rohm: I think that was the primary reason for the question.
Noriyuki: Okay. I'm sorry. I think that's a conservative timeline to get all of the
landscaping in and be completely cleaned up and out the door.
Rohm: Thank you, sir.
Noriyuki: Thank you.
Baird: Mr. Chair? Before you proceed I want to respond to the allegation that this body
is merely rubber stamping this or that why not some other kind of project and I just
wanted to remind the people in the audience that we live in a system of property rights.
The particular company that's developing this property owns it, they are making the
choice to develop it. You're taking their proposal, making sure that they meet the city's
rules. If they meet the rules, they are entitled to your recommendation. If somebody
else had bought it and wanted a park, that would be fine, but what you have before you
is somebody trying to make their way through our system and you're doing your job in
reviewing that. I just wanted to put that on the record, because sometimes people don't
quite understand what your role is.
Rohm: Thank you, Mr. Baird. I appreciate your comments. And for the audience as a
whole, I can tell you that we as a Commission take every single comment that you make
and we incorporate that into our decision-making process and sometimes things work
out just exactly as one body would like them and sometimes they go the other direction,
but at no point in time is any testimony dismissed. I can speak for the -- I believe I can
speak for the entire Commission from that perspective and I want to thank each and
every one of you for coming in tonight and staying to this late hour. We have had later
nights, but this is the latest that we have been here in a couple months. So, we
certainly appreciate each one of you coming in tonight. And with that I think possibly it
would be in order to close the Public Hearing.
A0
;F
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 78 of 80
Siddoway: So moved.
Moe: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to close the Public Hearing on RZ 06-011 and
PP 06-060. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Okay. Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Moe: Mr. Chairman?
Rohm: Commissioner Moe.
Moe: After considering all staff, applicant, and public testimony, move to recommend
approval to the City Council of file number RZ 06-011 and PP 06-060, as presented in
the staff report for the hearing date of December 21st, 2006, and continued onto
February 15th, 2007, with no modifications.
Siddoway: Would you be willing to add the requirement for a homeowners association
in the subdivision?
Moe: Well, he's already said he would. So be it. I would include that in my motion.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: Okay. Just a point of clarification. The request to rezone has been dropped, so
are we just doing just the preliminary plat?
Lucas: Chairman Rohm, Members of the Commission, correct, there is no reason to
take action on the rezone application. I don't know if the motion was written improperly,
that would be my fault, but I apologize for that if it's not written correctly. But the motion
should only be on the preliminary plat, because as of right now there really is no rezone
application.
Rohm: I think we can make that modification right here when I restate the motion prior
to a vote.
Lucas: Just a clarification. I have just been told it is on the agenda, so maybe an
acceptance of their withdraw would be necessary, then, for that application, just to
address the agenda.
Rohm: Okay. We will do that in a secondary motion.
Lucas: Thank you.
U
A�
Meridian Planning 9 & Zoning
S
February 15, 2007
Page 79 of 80
Rohm: Okay. At this time I'd like to have a vote on -- there has been a motion to move
onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-060, to include the staff report with
no modification --
Borup: Do we want to withdraw the rezone first?
Rohm: Do you want to do that first?
Baird: Mr. Chair, it would be my recommendation that you take them in that order, that
way once the issue of the rezone is off the table, you're properly acting on the
preliminary plat. Just put that motion aside.
Rohm: Okay. That's fine. We will just slip another motion in there first.
Moe: Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve the withdrawal of RZ 06-011.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded that we accept the withdrawal of the application
for the rezone RZ 06-011. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign. Motion
carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Now, we have got the rezone off the table, we will now vote on the motion to
forward onto City Council recommending approval of PP 06-060, to include all staff
comments with the addition of a homeowners association as a requirement to this
project. All those in favor say aye. Opposed same sign? Motion carried. Good night.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
Rohm: Could we get a motion to adjourn?
Moe: So moved.
Siddoway: Second.
Rohm: It's been moved and seconded to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Opposed
same sign? Motion carried.
MOTION CARRIED: FOUR AYES. ONE ABSENT.
MEETING ADJOURNED AT 11:35 P.M.
y
y t `11
OS �z
U�
4
J 17
� t
i
4
4 7M
r
iq
Meridian Planning & Zoning
February 15, 2007
Page 80 of 80
(TAPE ON FILE OF THESE PROCEEDINGS.)
unwasing
I kyl I Eel kvi F-3 i",
ATTESTED:
U
DATE APP,�`�''',
WILLIAM G. BERODR., CLE
8
fit 11 11110
0 •
February 12, 2007
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT ITEM NO. •
REQUEST Approve Minutes of January 18, 2007 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
bm —
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
0 0
February 12, 2007 AZ 07-001
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 4
REQUEST Public Hearing - Annexation and Zoning of 6.84acres from RUT to an R-4 zone
for Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
See Memo for Confinuance
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
See Attached Comments
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
See Attached Comments
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
No Comment
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
See Attached Comments
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
February 12, 2007
E
PP 07-001
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Pole Creek Properties, Inc. ITEM NO. 5
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 22 single-family residential
building lots and 5 common / other lots on 6.84 acres in a proposed R-4 zone for
Belhaven Subdivision - 5230 N. Black Cat Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
See AZ Packet
COMMENTS
Contacted: Date:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Phone:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
Ll
February 12,2W7
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING
APPLICANT Darren Blaser
11
CUP 07-001
February 15, 2007
ITEM NO. 6
REQUEST Public Hearing - Conditional Use Permit for an 11,000 square foot multi -tenant
retail building on .75 acres in a C -G Zone for Jamaca Me Tan - North of East Fairview Ave
and West of Hickory Ave in Lot 3, Block 1 of Mallane Subdivision
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CIT( WATER DEPT:
CIT( SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become properly of the City of Meridian.
•
February 12, 2007
11
CUP 06-041
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT St. Vincent de Paul Thrift Store ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued_ Public Hearing from 2/1/07- Conditional Use Permit for a 3,000 sq ft
storage building on .88 acres in the O -T zone for St. Vincent de Paul Storage Building - 213 N. Main St.
AGENCY
COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR: See Attached Staff Report
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY EIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Revised Site Pian / Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
February 12, 2007 RZ 07-001
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Heritage Development, LLC ITEM NO. 8
REQUEST Public Hearing - Rezone of 1.59 acres from an R-4 to an R-8 zone for Deklan
Subdivision - east of the NEC of W. 4th Street & Maple Street
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT.
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at pubtk meetings shaA become property of the City of Meddlan.
•
February 12, 2007 PP 07-002
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Heritage Development, LLC ITEM NO. 9
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 6 single-family building lots & 2
common lots on 1.59 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Deklan Subdivision -
east of the NEC of W. 4th Street & Maple Street
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
February 12,2W7 PP 07-003
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15,2W7
APPLICANT Ken Lenz ITEM NO. 10
REQUEST Public Hearing - Preliminary Plat approval of 6 commercial building lots on
8.06 acres in a C -G zone for Medina Subdivision - SWC of S. Meridian Road and
W. Overland Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH!
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
OTHER: See Affidavit of Sign Posting / See Attached Letter from Joyce & Ken Weland
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan.
February 12,2W7 AZ 06-058
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO.
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1/4/07- Annexation and Zoning of 38.01
acres from RUT (Ada County) to R-8 zone for Sagew_ ood Subdivision -
4435 S. Meridian Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Revised Legal Descriptions / See ITD Comments
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
11
February 12, 2007
11
PP 06-057
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT M & H Development, LLC ITEM NO. 12
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1/4/07- Request for Preliminary Plat approval of 115
single-family residential building lots and 6 common/other lots on 38.01 acres in a proposed
R-8 zone for Sagewood Subdivision - 4435 S. Meridian Road.
AGENCY
CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
•
February 12, 2007
11
AZ 06-059
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Providence Development ITEM NO. 13
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1/4/07 - Annexation and Zoning of 224.26
acres from RR to R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision
west of S. Eagle Road and south of Amity Road.
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
See Attached Staff Report
See Attached Comments
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER: See Attached Sign Posting / Letters from Concerned Citizens
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the city of Meridian.
• 0
February 12, 2007 PP 06-059
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Providence Development ITEM NO. 14
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 1/4/07 -Preliminary Plat approval of 644 residential
lots and 31 common lots on 224.26 acres in the proposed R-2, R-4 and R-8 zones for
Blackrock Castle Greens Subdivision - west of South Eagle Road and south of Amity Road
AGENCY COMMENTS
CITY CLERK: See AZ Packet
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.
r
•
February 12, 2007
RZ 06-011
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Gemstar Development ITEM NO. 15
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/21/06 Rezone of 10.57 acres from an R-4 zone
to an R-8 zone for Sundial Subdivision - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
OTHER: See Letters from Concerned Citizens / Petitions
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Merldlan.
0
February 12, 2007
11
MERIDIAN PLANNING & ZONING MEETING February 15, 2007
APPLICANT Gemstar Development ITEM NO. 16
REQUEST Continued Public Hearing from 12/21/06 - Preliminary Plat approval of 30 single-family
building lots, 3 common lots & 1 other lot on 10.57 acres in a proposed R-8 zone for Sundial
Subdivision - south of Ustick Road and west of Linder Road
AGENCY
CITY CLERK:
CITY ENGINEER:
CITY PLANNING DIRECTOR:
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY POLICE DEPT:
CITY FIRE DEPT:
CITY BUILDING DEPT:
CITY WATER DEPT:
CITY SEWER DEPT:
CITY PARKS DEPT:
MERIDIAN SCHOOL DISTRICT:
SANITARY SERVICES:
ADA COUNTY HIGHWAY DISTRICT:
CENTRAL DISTRICT HEALTH:
NAMPA MERIDIAN IRRIGATION:
SETTLERS' IRRIGATION:
IDAHO POWER:
INTERMOUNTAIN GAS:
OTHER:
COMMENTS
See Previous Item Packet / Attached Minutes
See Attached Staff Report
No Comment
See Attached Comments
See Attached Comments
See Attached Letters from Concerned Citizens
Contacted: Date: Phone:
Emailed: Staff Initials:
Materials presented at public meetings shall become property of the City of Meridian.